Hi Steelredux.

As an experienced debater, I sense that my last post hit home with you, as the only aspect which you countered was my premise that English beat police are now armed. I have found previously, that my less intelligent opponents characteristically get more strident in their abuse and more desperate to keep hammering away at trivial points as if they were "elephants in the room.", while the intelligent ones like you tend to go a bit more quiet as they reflect on what I submit.

On the topic of the arming of general duties police, my premise was for English police, while your figures were for British police. British police forces are unlike Australian state police, as they are county controlled. The English county of Nottinghamshire was the first county police force to equip it's general duties police with handguns, and my information was that the practice was spreading. In any case, your argument does not detract one whit from the essential point that I was making, that violent societies need strict gun laws, while peaceful societies do not. And that no amount of gun control is going to make any difference if your society keeps educating it's youth through it's entertainment media that illegal drug taking is fun, and that violent criminal behaviour is adventurous and admirable behaviour.

In 1998, after the London Times produced the blazing banner headline KILLINGS RISE AS 3 MILLION HANDGUNS FLOOD BRITAIN, Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood was quoted as saying.....

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less than when there were no controls of any sort. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime, than ever before."

To be continued

Continued

It is hardly surprising that handguns are so prized among criminals. After all, not only has the entertainment industry glamourised the lifestyles of violent criminals, drug pushers and illegal drug users, they have mandated the use of handguns in criminal behaviour to such a degree, that no self respecting violent criminal or drug pusher would be without one. In the same way that the entertainment industry uses "incidental" smoking scenes to by pass bans on tobacco advertising, and other manufactures use movie "product placements" in movies to advertise their wares, the gun industry has found that promoting it's weapons through the media is an ideal way to advertise.

Violent movie stars are now associated with specific weapons. The .44 Magnum handgun was considered too big by most shooters until it was popularised by Clint Eastwood in the "Dirty Harry" series of movies. Sylvester Stallone created a demand for the previously little known "Rambo" type survival knife. These knives are even reproduced as rubber toys for boys so they can act out stabbing their little boy friends. In the movie US MARSHALLS, movie star Tommy lee Jones barks at a young officer "Get rid of that sissy gun and get a Glock!" But these movies do not just create a demand for the products used by movie stars by young people, who are desperate to model their lives on their violent role model heroes, they produce a desire to emulate their violent and sometimes murderous behaviour as well.

The arguments put forward by the media and it's employees, that the images shown and the messages transmitted by the print, audio or visual media have no effect upon human behaviour, would be regarded with hilarity on Madison Avenue. So too, manufacturers and film makers would grin at each other and give themselves knowing winks. It just goes to show that the servants of Mammon are a lot smarter than the naive servants of left wing idealism.

Hear hear Lego! In Trinidad possession of a gun is mandated to imprisonment, extremely violent place. In Switzerland every able bodied man in their defence force has, at his home, an automatic assault rifle. Switzerland is a very non-violent society.
What sticks in my throat is that all the people who cheered the gun confiscation are silent over the namby pamby treatment of gun carrying crims.
It sickens me hearing all this rubbish from the anti-gun lobby when it is me who loses my guns. However they are delighted that their crim mates can murder happily away, You have no shame!

Democratically elected Governments should be most reluctant to pass more laws to control citizens. Laws should be based frimly on evidence and never be exercises in political populism, where politicians try to win favour with the perverse demands of editors whose aim is to increase their audience, to sell papers, but they don't mind the power of leaning on politicians at the same time.

It does not matter one iota what firearms or number of firearms are held by the responsible, law-abiding people who are licensed. Very few hoplophobes would ever be aware of their neighbours who hunt game and also perform a most valuable service through helping to control feral pests that could easily carry diseases and parasites to damage the livestock industry.

Why do leftist hypocrites such as the Trotskyist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens deliberately and cynically always conflate peace-loving good citizens and their legal firearms, with foul criminals whose modus operandi is to break laws and when they choose the firearms regulations too?

Why do these leftists foolishly and perversely support criminals like the Middle Eastern thugs who are taking over outlaw motorcycle clubs to extend their drug empires, and some simply to indulge in the recreational mayhem they imported as their traditions? Conversely these controlling leftie political Progressives' ill-intent towards their fellow law-abiding Australians is demonstrated by their pleading for further erosion of the civil rights of ordinary citizens.

What public good exactly is to be had from laws that encourage police to keep personal particulars of the police-certified non-criminals, duly licensed ordinary mums and dads, on police computers as 'persons of interest' and to pay visits to their homes in fully marked police vehicles to conduct random inspections? Yet when State governments concerned about drug and violence stop a bikie thug in the street we are supposed to believe that is a gross infringement of the bikie's rights.

The 'elephant in the room' is the murky, secret-squirrel world of 'gun control' activists and their links with shady, wealthy foreigners who interfere in the politics and domestic affairs of other countries including in Australian society and politics.

"The 'elephant in the room' is the murky, secret-squirrel world of 'gun control' activists and their links with shady, wealthy foreigners who interfere in the politics and domestic affairs of other countries including in Australian society and politics."

absolutely!

see.....here's the problem....
and....like you said....*the REAL "elephant in the room" *, eh?

the 1996/1997 Howard gun grab...

how come a miniscule, no-account org' like Gun Control Australia (total membership: six men and a dog....*if* that!) got so much prime-time media spruiking, eh?

and....yet....an org like the SSAA with 150K+ members could barely get a 'look in'......

oy vey!

a mystery, itz!!

so....who's the *real* powerful lobby group here, eh?
GCA (funded by international gangsters like the Soros Foundation) or law-abiding fire-arm owners like the SSAA, eh?

more here: http://tinyurl.com/rbcc-ptrs-prfl ;

"It sickens me hearing all this rubbish from the anti-gun lobby when it
is me who loses my guns. However they are delighted that their crim mates can murder happily away, You have no shame!"

that's why gun-grabbers like "the Emperor" cannot really be engaged in rational discussion.....when you present heaps of facts and evidence (like i have, for instance) proving that: (a)gun control is bogus and (b)the justifications for same (these faux/'staged' mass-shootings) are, also, transparently bogus...they 'back off'....then....when they think 'the coast is clear', they simply return and regurg' the same BS abt 'elephants in the room' and such malarkey!

that's a typical pseudo-marxist tactic...straight out of their play-book...

"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" V I Lenin
and: "call your enemy what you are; accuse your enemy of what you do!"

it's an ideological/philosophical conflict that *cannot* be resolved via debate and discussion...

in the end....to coin one of their mentors' aphorisms:

"political power comes out of the barrel of a gun"