# Shootings in Europe even with gun control...



## billc (Dec 18, 2012)

I am putting this is a seperate location because I hadn't heard of a lot of these shootings and our press apparently doesn't think they are relevant in our current discussion on gun control...Some of the stories below are duplicated by the two links...but there are many that aren't...

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20110410-330320/Mass-shootings-in-EuropeFacts

Mass shootings in Europe&#8212;Facts 



> Agence France-Presse
> First Posted 03:27:00 04/10/2011
> 
> Filed Under: Europe, Armed conflict, Children, Schools,People, Curiosities
> ...



There are more here...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...cidents-in-last-25-years/Article1-892635.aspx



> April 28, 1996 - Australia - Martin Bryant unleashed modern Australia's worst mass murder when he shot dead 35 people at the Port Arthur tourist site in the southern state of Tasmania.





> June 2001 - Nepal - Eight members of the Nepalese Royal family were killed in a palace massacre by Crown Prince Dipendra who later turned a gun on himself and died few days later. His youngest brother also died later raising the death toll to 10.
> 
> April 26, 2002 - Germany - In Erfurt, eastern Germany, 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser opened fire after saying he was not going to take a math test. He killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two pupils and a policeman at the Gutenberg Gymnasium, before killing himself.





> Nov 7, 2007 - Finland - Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed six fellow students, the school nurse, the principal and himself with a handgun at the Jokela High School near Helsinki.
> 
> Sept 23, 2008 - Finland - Student Matti Saari opened fire in a vocational school in Kauhajoki in northwest Finland, killing nine other students and one male staff member before killing himself.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2012)

Sigh. This is why we have the science of statistics. What is the rate of gun deaths in, say, France, as compared to the U.S.? (Hint: It's less than one-third of ours.) Are you also making the argument that anything that isn't a 100% solution is a 100% failure, even if it greatly reduces deaths? I don't want to wait for the perfect world. If I can get fewer deaths now, I'll take it.


----------



## billc (Dec 18, 2012)

Not the point.  This just shows that no matter what, these things are going to happen, even in countries with extremely tight gun control...

Here is a list of even more from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 18, 2012)

You want fewer deaths allow the victims to fight back.  Allow more good guys to have guns to stop bad guys before they kill 20 people.  If bad guy kills 5 and then good guy kills bad guy that's better then good guy not having gun and bad guy kills 20 then himself.  See the. You get what you want less death


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 18, 2012)

It wont work. The majority of the public will not carry guns. That will just open more doors for bad people to get and carry guns.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You want fewer deaths allow the victims to fight back.



Funny how the death rates are stunningly lower where this isn't true. If we use science--statistics--the answer is clear. If we use anecdotes and gun battle fantasies, well, then we get the status quo.


----------



## Uncle (Dec 18, 2012)

Take a look at the gun ownership rates between Canada and the US per capita and the amount of firearm deaths/crime per capita and things are pretty clear. Also the fact we can't legally carry handguns except as a hunting backup may help.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 18, 2012)

because Bill hates Europe.......it's full of lefties who kill premature babies.


----------



## jezr74 (Dec 18, 2012)

The Martin Bryant one you listed is being miss represented. 

It is actually what caused gun control to be introduced in Australia. No mass shootings since.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man (Dec 18, 2012)

billc said:


> I am putting this is a seperate location because I hadn't heard of a lot of these shootings and our press apparently doesn't think they are relevant in our current discussion on gun control...Some of the stories below are duplicated by the two links...but there are many that aren't...
> 
> April 28, 1996 - Australia - Martin Bryant unleashed modern Australia's worst mass murder when he shot dead 35 people at the Port Arthur tourist site in the southern state of Tasmania.[/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (Dec 18, 2012)

jezr74 said:


> The Martin Bryant one you listed is being miss represented.
> 
> It is actually what caused gun control to be introduced in Australia. No mass shootings since.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


Didn't mean to over ride your post but I was obviously composing my reply to Bill's _oversight_ when you posted.   :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Sigh. This is why we have the science of statistics.



Ever wonder what the statistics look like if you include all of the poor disarmed souls murdered by their own governments?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

This website is the product of a University of Hawaii political scientist who counted up all of the deaths caused by governments in the 20th century and subtracted deaths caused by war.  The mass graves have 268,000,000 million people in them.  Imagine if we collated the deaths caused by the governments of Europe and worked them into the statistics.  How do you think the ratios would look?

America is hard to defend on many things, but on the 2nd Amendment, this might be the reason that during one of the bloodiest centuries in recent history, no one alive in America can even remember a mass grave.



> _Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely._
> ----This Web Site


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 19, 2012)

Almost 32 people die a day in murders committed with a gun in the US. Its all fine and good to show other country's stats, but honestly, I'd love to have thier rate of gun violence as opposed to ours.  We've had 4 massacres in quick succession.  I don't see that in any other country.  Your post seems to indicate that gun violence will happen as long as there are insane people and guns.  That comes under the heading of "No ***t"  They do not happen as often.  You can add up all of the European episodes and it doesn't come close to the number of episodes here.  All your doing with your post supporting the unrealistic solution of removing all guns.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 19, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Ever wonder what the statistics look like if you include all of the poor disarmed souls murdered by their own governments?
> 
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
> 
> ...



Are you arguing that the reason the US government hasn't killed large numbers of its own citizens is because the citizens might own a gun?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 19, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> It wont work. The majority of the public will not carry guns. That will just open more doors for bad people to get and carry guns.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



This may be true. I don't own or carry a gun, and it has nothing to do with the law. I don't feel the need for a firearm of any kind. I feel like the chances of an accident occurring, or of something else bad happening, is more likely than me being in a situation where I would need a gun to defend myself. If I felt like I needed to have a gun to go to a certain place, I would avoid that place. If I thought I needed a gun to be safe where I lived, I would find a new place to live. I realize that not everyone has the ability to make that kind of choice, but that's the way it is for me.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 19, 2012)

Yes we have had massacres over here too. Still we don`t feel the need to arm ourselves to the teeth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2012)

Jaeimseu said:


> Are you arguing that the reason the US government hasn't killed large numbers of its own citizens is because the citizens might own a gun?



It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure how much gun ownership actually affects the amount of political violence, but it seems to make logical sense when you look at societies that are allowed to own weapons. Authoritarians find them entirely....unmanageable....lol.

So, the question that comes to my mind is that i wonder if the increase in social violence is the price that must be paid for the decrease in political violence?


----------



## GrandmasterP (Dec 19, 2012)

Interesting stats here 
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2012)

GrandmasterP said:


> Interesting stats here
> http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html



I'm pretty sure you could compare the us and Britain in every crime stat and we would blow them out of the water.  Rapes robbery burglary we are a much less polite and civilized nation.  We have higher drug use higher gang numbers higher incarceration rates as well.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 19, 2012)

We are still a nation only a few hundred years away from Revolution, Civil War, Indian Wars, The Wild West. Our national DNA is far far younger than that of the Old World. Actually...in the scope of history...I think our nation is unique is it's rate of advancement from inception to today. Look at how long and often Europe has set itself ablaze over the course of time. Every one of it's nations has a longer history of war, genocide, political violence and every other human evil.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 19, 2012)

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html



> Likewise, the historical evidence refutes the attribution of differential international violence rates to differences in gun laws rather than socio-institutional and cultural differences. Those who attribute low European violence rates to banning guns are apparently unaware that those low rates long preceded the gun bans.{139} In fact, stringent gun laws first appeared in the U.S., not Europe -- despite which high American crime rates persisted and grew.{140} Ever-growing violence in various American states from the 1810s on, led them to pioneer ever more severe gun controls.{141} But in Europe, where violence was falling, or was not even deemed an important problem, gun controls varied from the lax to the non- existent. During the 19th Century in England, for instance, crime fell from its high in the late 18th Century to its idyllic early 20th Century low -- yet the only gun control was that police could not carry guns.{142}
> In considering reasons for the differentials between U.S. and British homicide historically, Prof. Monckkonen rejects the conventional explanations including gun ownership, remarking:
> 
> Virtually every analysis put forward to explain the [comparatively] very high United States homicide rate has been ahistorical.... Had they been proposed as historical, they would have foundered quickly for the explanatory inadequacy of these "pet" theories becomes immediately apparent in a historical context.{143}
> ...


----------



## K-man (Dec 19, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Flatly asserting that, no matter how stringent the gun laws, there will always be enough guns in any society to arm those desiring to obtain and use them illegally, he attributes grossly higher American violence rates "not to the availability of any particular class of weapon" *but to socio-cultural and institutional factors which dictate that American criminals are more willing to use extreme violence *[; quoting a report of the British Office of Health Economics:] "One reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms.... But the strong correlation with racial and linked socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate relate to particular cultural factors."


Interesting thought and has this been influenced by the graphic violence now shown on TV or in cinemas which has increased substantially over the last 50 years?  I'm thinking of Clockwork Orange as one of the first.  :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2012)

Cirdan said:


> Yes we have had massacres over here too. Still we don`t feel the need to arm ourselves to the teeth.



I can't tell you how much I admired (nor am I the only one) the Norwegian response to the recent shooting there, it was heartwarming. And quite magnificent. :asian:


----------



## granfire (Dec 19, 2012)

K-man said:


> Interesting thought and has this been influenced by the graphic violence now shown on TV or in cinemas which has increased substantially over the last 50 years?  I'm thinking of Clockwork Orange as one of the first.  :asian:




well, I am thinking that home video systems paved the way. Previously you had to pass the movie usher, and TV guide lines....
All of that went out the window with the video machine at home. I mean, yes, the clerks at the store screened the people who went in the back room, but who safeguarded the shelf at home (A friend of mine's parents had one of the first video players in the village. they did rent a lot of the stupid 70s movies for her, but had some more - erm - couple oriented ones, my friend got into one time.....)

Now of course, to keep up with the Joneses you have to up it up.
it is not enough to show every minute detail of how the victim died (thanks CSI) but you also have to puzzle your way through the depraved minds of the - usually - serial killer (Criminal Minds, I think) 

but then again... nothing says Christmas like a marathon of 'The Longest Day' or Midway.....


----------



## billc (Dec 20, 2012)

Well, as gangs in Europe become more aggressive and you might see more killings, as you already see more stabbings.  The gun crime rate in England has increased and it is more likely to increase than decrease.


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2012)

billc said:


> Well, as gangs in Europe become more aggressive and you might see more killings, as you already see more stabbings.  *The gun crime rate in England has increased and it is more likely to increase than decrease.*


Why?


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2012)

> Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996
> 
> 
> Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775
> ...


Mmm!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 21, 2012)

K-man said:


> Why?


I think his answer to the 'why' falls under his previous statement, that gangs are becoming more aggressive. Not sure entirely where he's coming up with that idea, though, since for once he didnt post 5 links supporting the statement.


Did a quick google search and found an article from a year ago suggesting there isnt much official data on gangs because they dont know how to define the gangs, among other reasons.. Normally I would discount this as outdated, but since I couldn't find much else I'm going to assume thats the reason billc is unable to support his claim. It also posted something that can't be considered outdated: 





> Generally, the risk of becoming a crime victim in Britain today is at a 30-year low. There has been a long-term downward trend in crime, including violent offences, since the mid-1990s.



That should answer your why-there is no answer because its not true.
here's a link to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15238377


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2012)

Victorian Britain was an extremely violent place despite dravonian sentencing in the courts and the lack of 'gun control', in fact most eres before this were violent think Dick Turpin and the highway robbers etc, it was unsafe to use the roads often. Life wasn't Jane Austen you know lol! violence crime and crime in general has been falling for a number of reasons, the horrendous poverty has gone, better policing, better education etc. Knife crime has always been common here even before the gun laws. They are cheap, easy to get use and get hold of, they've always been around, guns were never that popular being expensive to buy illegally as well as legally. The UK in the fifities and sixties was more violent than the seventies and eighties, the seventies and eighties more violent than the nineties and current times. 
I'm not sure you can say gangs in Europe are more aggressive, as I've reminded Bill time and time again in the time I didn't have him on ignore, Europe is over 50 very different countries so banding them together in this way is pointless. You have countries like Switzerland, which people use as a good example of NO gun control to Serbia, Bosnia etc which can be a bit lawless. Lumping them all together and saying it's more violent in Europe is a nonsense.


----------



## GrandmasterP (Dec 21, 2012)

It was a lot more violent here in England in the old days, pre TV and movies so I don't think the media's to blame.
We did ship a lot of undesirables out to the colonies too back in the day, those folk continued to procreate and leopards tend not to change their spots; hence, perhaps, more violence in our former colonies than we see here in the mother country.


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

Here is a link from 2009...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html




> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm  offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to  9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.
> 
> In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
> In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
> The  statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain  gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become  increasingly common place.





> Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent. ​




Guns may become more prevalent because they a easy to use and effective at intimidating or killing victims or rivals.  Why wouldn't a gang begin to use guns more?
​


----------



## GrandmasterP (Dec 21, 2012)

That'd be Moss Side skewing the Lancashire figures.


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

> That'd be Moss Side skewing the Lancashire figures.



For us ex-colonials, what do you mean?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2012)

GrandmasterP said:


> That'd be Moss Side skewing the Lancashire figures.



You're right there! Not a place I'd willingly go. The Lancs police have made great inroads into the gun violence there, it's hard though because there's some real scallies there and they are up against it with the government.
However the Government (*which is Conservative ie the Right ie NOT the Left*) has cut jobs in policing and the result is higher crime. 
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/crime-up-after-cuts--police-chief-7820897.html

of course Bill who thinks Thatcher was a Socialist and all governments in Europe are either Socialist or Communists following in the lead of the Nazis will say David Cameron is such a leftist you'd expect cuts. 
Our gun laws were passed by the Conservatives, those leftists. John Major the well known communist was Prime Minister in 1996 at the time of the Dunblane massacre.

I'll warn you Grandmaster that Bill is to the far right of Genghis Khan and despises the UK for being 'socialist. He has never, since he's been here, ever posted a nice word about us and will dig in the dirt for anything he can find that will make us look bad. The reason I have him on ignore is that he accused us in the UK and Europe of killing premature babies something I will not forgive nor will I forget. If the gutter press prints something degrogatory about us UK Bill will find it and post it up. He also believes that Hitler was a 'leftist' because an economist said so, a real one with a PHD and everything.

Am I attacking the poster no because every word is true and by going back through his posts you will see that.


----------



## K-man (Dec 21, 2012)

GrandmasterP said:


> It was a lot more violent here in England in the old days, pre TV and movies so I don't think the media's to blame.
> We did ship a lot of undesirables out to the colonies too back in the day, those folk continued to procreate and leopards tend not to change their spots; hence, perhaps, more violence in our former colonies than we see here in the mother country.


Mmm! My Great Great Grandfather was one of those 'undesirables'. He was actually sentenced to transportation three times. As you say, leopards don't change their spots. None of his descendants have been in any trouble with the law and he probably wouldn't have either if the conditions around Manchester in the early 1800's weren't so austere.  He nicked some clothes, a particularly violent crime in those days, and the second time, some wood. I suppose you could say he was a slow learner. 

However, I digress.  I'm not sure you are correct in tarring *all *former colonies with the same brush.  Obviously America, Zimbabwe and Pakistan have high rates of violence, but Australia, New Zealand and Canada have much less.  I think that says more about how countries left colonial rule than whether or not they were penal colonies.   :asian:


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

Tez, as Ronald Reagan said,  "There you go again..." I have never said Thatcher was a socialist and you know it.  I found the post that you misread, and pointed out your error.  If you want, I can find it again to show you that once again, you are wrong to think that I ever believed Thatcher was a socialist.  I thanked her for the quote that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money..."  Now you were also mistaken in saying that Breitbart revealed that one of your princes, I forget which one, was serving in Afghanistan.  You kept saying it and then I had to go and prove that, once again, you were wrong.  The guy you cited was Matt Drudge and he only reprinted the information from an Australian tabloid that had discovered the story and printed it.  Considering how things can be passed around the internet, Matt Drudge probably helped save his life by letting people know that the secret was out.  Besides, it was the princes own buddies in his unit who were trying to sell photos of him over there.  So please, stop saying I said Thatcher was a socialist.  You were wrong about those things...deal with it and let's move on....

Also, I don't hate Britain, in fact I value them as one of our strongest allies and think that obama has treated Britain horribly.  I don't want Britain's healthcare system, their level of taxation or their gun laws or their speech laws over here,  these are the things I post about in a negative way because I want people here in the States to know what they mean if those policies come here... but other than those things I like you guys...even Tez.

The premature baby issue comes from an article I quoted.  The author said some harsh things about the way the British National health service treated premature babies.  I apoligized for not looking at his comment closer, but then later it appears that the National Health sErvice has started using "Death Pathways," something designed for adults, on children.  It is pretty gruesome and unpleasant, and is being investigated by the British government.  She of course didn't acknowledge my apology...bad form on her part...

I have at least 5 pH.ds in economics, one a nobel prize winner who point out that the Nazis were in fact left wing socialists, as opposed to right wing.  I also have other articles that support that idea, and because it doesn't fit what tez and some others were told in school by their left leaning history professors, they disagree with 5 specialists in the field of economics who tend to know what "Socialism," actually is.

Look up Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek (nobel prize winner in economics) Thomas Sowell...and others who will confirm that hitler and his followers were lefties, not righties (as defined by American conservative standards).  Also look up Jonah Goldberg, John J. Ray and others who have writtten about this historical mistake...



> Our gun laws were passed by the Conservatives, those leftists.



Wrong, your gun laws were passed by politicians who reacted to an atrocity, and ignored the rights of their citizens...oh that's right...subjects...


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

To show where Tez made her mistake, I found the post I had to put together to show her mistake...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/101470-Margaret-Thatcher-socialism-error?highlight=thatcher

Tez, I think I found it.   The "it" being the post where you think I said Margaret Thatcher was a socialist...




> > *Tez3*
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 21, 2012)

billc said:


> and others who will confirm that hitler and his followers were lefties, not righties (as defined by American conservative standards).



So you're saying that by the standards of American conservatives, Hitler and the liberals are a lot alike? 

From liberal standards, the militarization and the invasion of other countries has a distinctly right-wing feel to it (and then there's the racism). Weigh that against any socialist social programs they had.


----------



## granfire (Dec 21, 2012)

arnisador said:


> So you're saying that by the standards of American conservatives, Hitler and the liberals are a lot alike?
> 
> From liberal standards, the militarization and the invasion of other countries has a distinctly right-wing feel to it (and then there's the racism). Weigh that against any socialist social programs they had.



Nice try

we have been going on about this for two years now....


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

Have you ever read the nazi positions on those issues.  You really should, they could have been taken from the democrat party platform.  The racism...I believe socialists of all stripes dislike Jews, have in the past pushed for killing undesirables, in particular those of other races.  Look at the much loved Planned Parent hood in this country and where they started.  Margaret Sanger wanted to reduce the population of minorities.  Remember as well, the democrats were the party of slavery, jim crow, the ku klux klan, church bombings and lynchings.  The photos you see of peaceful marchers being beaten and fire hosed...the people doing it are all democrats.

I'll find the 25 points the nazis pushed but here is a quick look from wikipedia...



> Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use, if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.[SUP][135][/SUP] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[SUP][136][/SUP] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished;



Doesn't sound like an American conservative position to me...

Here you go...

http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf



> 10.    It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.
> 
> 
> _We therefore demand:
> ...



Does this sound like the republican party or the democrats and OWS?

As to war...remember Stalin and the invasion of Poland, that little Vietnam thing, the Chinese communists...


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

Eugenics has a particularly racist bent to it...wouldn't you say and it was the socialists who advocated for it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society



> The *Fabian Society* is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] It is best known for its initial ground-breaking work beginning late in the 19th century and continuing up to World War I. The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from thedecolonisation of the British Empire, especially India.





> Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal.[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians was not limited to one individual, it was a widely shared view in Fabian Society.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP]



On Eugenics and socialism...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/malthus-hitler-socialism-eugenics-13167.html



> The term final solution usually will find its way into the passages of commentary on the German National Socialists (Nazis). However very few people know what the initial question was that was first asked, nor by whom. In addition, even fewer recognize that Adolf Hitler was not the originator of the question or the answer.





> By the commencement of the &#8220;Third International Eugenics Conference&#8221; in New York in 1932, the proposed forms of population control and resource consumption reduction were established and were as follows:
> 1. Birth control through the methods of sterilization of the undesirables, use of contraception, and abortion.
> 2. Euthanasia for the sick and old.
> 3. Establishing a one- or two-child policy for appropriate countries.
> ...





> Sanger was highly praised by Hitler for her work in eugenics and her promotion of abortion as a population control tool. Often calling her his inspiration, Hitler ensured she worked closely with the most important person in the early Nazi movement, Dr. Ernst Rudin, to plan their new society.



Now, which current political party in the United States is opposed to abortion...?  Which party is for the rights of the "individual,"?  Which political party supports the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration more than the other?  Hmmmm...


----------



## granfire (Dec 21, 2012)

billc said:


> Have you ever read the nazi positions on those issues.  You really should, they could have been taken from the democrat party platform.  The racism...I believe socialists of all stripes dislike Jews, have in the past pushed for killing undesirables, in particular those of other races.  Look at the much loved Planned Parent hood in this country and where they started.  Margaret Sanger wanted to reduce the population of minorities.  Remember as well, the democrats were the party of slavery, jim crow, the ku klux klan, church bombings and lynchings.  The photos you see of peaceful marchers being beaten and fire hosed...the people doing it are all democrats.
> 
> I'll find the 25 points the nazis pushed but here is a quick look from wikipedia...
> 
> ...





billc said:


> Eugenics has a particularly racist bent to it...wouldn't you say and it was the socialists who advocated for it...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
> 
> ...




Ok, sweety....let me try one last time:
NO
The NAZIs were not socialists.

How come I know?
because my Grandmother was a nazi. her brother was a nazi and she was damned proud of him having been a member before it became mandatory to hold any type of position!
There was NOTHING socialist about it.

By your definition Bismark was a socialist. After all he pushed the most comprehensive social reforms through the legislature during his reign.

HELL NO.
he did that in the attempt to appease the masses, trying to steal the socialist movement's thunder!

Same for the Nazis. DO not forget, in the 1930s, the world was crippled by the Great Depression. People had nothing. it was around that time when they went shopping, carrying their money in laundry baskets to the store. 

Bread and games...
Every time you equal Nazis to socialists, I swear, Grandma is adding a few RPMs to her revolutions in the grave! 

Yes, you have to feed the people, because full sheep are easier to guide!


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2012)

For you granfire...from the Nobel prize winning economist...the guys who study...economic systems...like socialism...

http://carrefoursagesse.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/friedrich-von-hayek-nazism-is-socialism/



> The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National &#8220;Socialism&#8221; is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &#8220;socialism of the chair&#8221; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
> 
> One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners.  But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement.  But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.
> 
> ...





> The collectivist and anti-individualistic character of German National Socialism is not much modified by the fact that it is not a proletarian but middle class socialism, and that it is, in consequence, inclined to favour the small artisan and shop keeper and to set the limit up to which it recognizes private property somewhat higher than does communism. In the first instance, it will probably nominally recognise private property in general. But private initiative will probably be hedged about with restrictions on competition so that little freedom will remain.
> 
> 
> Artisans, shop-keepers and professional men will, in all likelihood, be organized in guilds, like those of the medieval crafts, which will regulate their activities. In the case of the wealthier capitalists, state control and restriction of income will leave little more than the name of property, even while the intention of correcting the undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals has not yet been carried out.
> ...


----------



## billc (Dec 22, 2012)

Here is another Ph.D in economics on why nazis are socialists...he mentions Von mises in his paper...

http://mises.org/daily/1937



> My purpose today is to make just two main points:
> 
> (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2012)

Early Godwinization of this thread.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 22, 2012)

It looks like I've proved my point, Bill rants on just about everything are skewed by insane fervour for the extreme right to the extent that if someone does something wrong it's the left's fault, if it's correct it's the right that in the right.
Did I mention the posts where he said that the right are peace loving and non violent while all the lefties are violent and aggressive? Or where the lefties are child murderers but no conservative has ever murdered anyone ever?
To rant about socialist and Jews, well, what would I know, my parents were both. To rant about Nazis being leftists, well my mother was a concentration camp survivor but what would she know about Nazis eh? To rant about the violence in the UK and Europe, funny thing is...I'm both British and European and know quite a bit about crime, laws, and even history but hey, again what would I know?

Bill despises, fears and hates anything and anyone that is not of his way of thinking, and his way of thinking is formed by reading stuff from right wingers, sometimes extreme right wingers. There's no room for critical thinking, no room for questioning, no room for dissent from these views, it's very extreme right wing, actually it's right wing to the point of being fascist. Beware these thoughts because he and his ilk will have America as tied up as Hitler did Germany, don't think, obey. shout down anyone who disagrees, flood this thread with endless and pointless quotes so that peopole give up and just accept what he says. After all if he keeps on about it he must be right, if it's repeated enough it becomes the truth. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! people must be encouraged to think for themselves, to retain their freedom fighting for it if necessary. Just because someone has a university degree doesn't make them right, being on television doesn't make them right. They have agendas too.


----------



## K-man (Dec 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Bill despises, fears and hates anything and anyone that is not of his way of thinking, and his way of thinking is formed by reading stuff from right wingers, sometimes extreme right wingers. There's no room for critical thinking, no room for questioning, no room for dissent from these views, it's very extreme right wing, actually it's right wing to the point of being fascist. Beware these thoughts because he and his ilk will have America as tied up as Hitler did Germany, don't think, obey. shout down anyone who disagrees, flood this thread with endless and pointless quotes so that peopole give up and just accept what he says. After all if he keeps on about it he must be right, if it's repeated enough it becomes the truth. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!


By jove, I think you could be right!  :hmm:


----------



## granfire (Dec 22, 2012)

K-man said:


> By jove, I think you could be right!  :hmm:



Sadly, she is.

(I mean, the wolrd according to billie...I think even Atilla the Hun would be considered a lefty....)


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 22, 2012)

The whole premise of the OP is wrong, we have over 50 countries in Europe all different from each other, you can't praise Switzerland for it's so called lack of gun laws ( it does have them) then say 'Europe' is riddled with gun crime.
The European countries.
Albania 
Andorra 
Armenia 
Azerbaijan 
Austria 
Belarus 
Belgium 
Bosnia and Herzegovina 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Czech Republic or Czechia
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Georgia 
Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Kazakhstan 
Latvia 
Liechtenstein 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
FYR of Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) 
Malta 
Moldova 
Monaco 
Montenegro 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Russia 
San Marino
Serbia 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
Turkey 
Ukraine 
United Kingdom 
Vatican City 

Some like Turkey, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan are considered as Transcontinental, that is belonging in Europe and Asia.


----------



## billc (Dec 22, 2012)

I just point out that even in European countries with strict gun control, there are still mass shootings.  That's all, it's that simple.  Bad guys will get guns regardless of what you do to stop them.

And tez, no I don't hate, despise or loath anyone.  In fact, I think that most lefties are simply wrong in what they believe, and that it is sad that they have implemented their high taxes, poor healthcare policies, and infringed on free speech the way they have.  Hate isn't something I feel.   I always find it strange that when I point out the flaws in Britains healthcare system, taxes, gun policies or speech policies, you automatically go to the "hate," accusation.  Is that projection on your part, because it isn't what I feel or believe.  

As Dennis Prager likes to say, Conservatives think that liberals are wrong, and liberals think conservatives are evil.  It comes from the sense that they believe that they are right and good, and because of their ego, that means that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil...after all, they are the good guys...in their own mind.

Afraid, yeah, I am afraid that the liberals in America are increasingly bringing policies like they have in Europe here to the states.  The idea that bigger government is better, high taxes are a good thing, guns are evil and should be banned, that speech is something that should be controlled by the government, and that what has happened over there in the past, communism, nazism, fascism, and the other mass murdering ideologies may one day take root here.  I would like to avoid that and part of that process is making people aware of why bigger government, centralized government without checks and balances on it's power and the focus on groups instead of the rights of the individual human are how those horrible things eventually come to be.


----------



## granfire (Dec 22, 2012)

billc said:


> I just point out that even in European countries with strict gun control, there are still mass shootings.  That's all, it's that simple.  Bad guys will get guns regardless of what you do to stop them.
> 
> And tez, no I don't hate, despise or loath anyone.  In fact, I think that most lefties are simply wrong in what they believe, and that it is sad that they have implemented their high taxes, poor healthcare policies, and infringed on free speech the way they have.  Hate isn't something I feel.   I always find it strange that when I point out the flaws in Britains healthcare system, taxes, gun policies or speech policies, you automatically go to the "hate," accusation.  Is that projection on your part, because it isn't what I feel or believe.
> 
> ...



and there you go, proving every single point she made.

Great job.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 22, 2012)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.
Mark Cochran
-MT Moderator-


----------



## GrandmasterP (Dec 22, 2012)

Moss Side is a ghetto area in the city  of Manchester in Lancashire where gun crime is common.
Drug dealers shooting each other and sometimes in innocent bystanders too.
The rest of the county is a very peaceful place on the whole.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2012)

Could someone explain to Bill that most of the governments in Europe are Consevative -the Right- as indeed is the UK's government. Even Sweden and Spains governments are Conservative. A good many countries have very liberal gun laws, and no mass killings, a good many countries have quite strict gun laws and no mass killings. It's more to do with the culture of a country than the gun laws. Some countries have never had a mass killing, some have had full scale wars like the Balkans, liberal gun laws and ethnic cleansing. There's no correlation between gun laws and mass murders I'm afraid. It very much depends on the country. I would point out that the mass killing in Norway was called a political killing by the killer an Ultra Right winger. 
for the country that is often pointed as as being sensible in it's gun politics Switzerland one should look at it's politics and see that there are a good many sociliasts including Christian Socialists it has in it's government which is a coalition. Liberals in the UK and Europe as has been pointed out many times aren't the same as liberals in the USA, very different actually, so saying 'liberal' politics in Europe compares to liberal politics in the US is incorrect.

Before embarking on a criticism of the UK and Europe it's important to actually understand what the countries are in Europe along with their culture and politics, to lump it all into one big country and label it 'leftist' is incorrect and very very stupid.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 30, 2012)

*Administrator's note:*

Thread closed, pending review. 

Ronald Shin
MT Assistant Administrator


----------

