Outragous

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I was watching a British mystery last night and I saw something that made me want to throw something at the TV. The show is called Father Brown. The story line went like this. A young women is bird hunting with her mother. Both of them impeccably dressed in British tweed. Suddenly the mother is hit in the chest with a blast of bird shot. The daughter freezes in place and drops this high quality English SXS double barreled shotgun. It had a small frame so I would guess it was a twenty gauge. To fast forward the girl blames herself and of course the gun. Later the young women is found trying to smash this beautiful shotgun with a large rock about the size of an ostrich egg. This actress is actually pounding on the fore arm and barrels of the shotgun with this rock and she is doing it with enthusiasm. The story plot had her blotting the accident from her mind but of course when she regained her memory she realized it was her mother who had dropped her shotgun and it landed in some soft wet weeds discharging and hitting her in the chest and face which of course would have been impossible. Ankles maybe, but not the chest or face. Anyhow the shotgun was aiming in the wrong direction. Very sad and disgusting.

[Wayne Smith]

Humm, since Father Brown was created by C.J.Chesterton (Chesterson?) before the turn of the last century I take it this is a takeoff? If you are not familiar with the original Father Brown mysteries you might look them up.

[MtGun44]

Got to work in that anti-gun message as often as possible, otherwise some folks
will start wanting them and even, (gasp!) LIKING them.

Sad to say, but the Brits are pretty far gone as to guns, and we have a large
contingent that thinks that the closer we follow, the better it will be.

Bill

[runfiverun]

good thing they didn't/don't know ballistics.
a shotgun at 4' is a slug wrapped in plastic.
pellets HA! it would have been a 3/4" hole going in and a mess going out.

[a.squibload]

Moral of the story: don't watch that show.

Yeah, mystery writers don't always know about guns, ballistics, forensics,... or anything.

[captaint]

Let's go back to the earlier days of WWII. When the Brits were begging for guns to defend themselves against the possible Nazi invasion. Help !! We can't defend ourselves. Send guns, please ?? A great people for sure. They just didn't get the self defense thing right. Mike

[Brithunter]

Some wonderful posting about things the poster clearly know nothing about.

Oh least I forget America came to Britains rescue Yeah right. Funny thing is that "The great War" (WW1) actually began in 1914 and not well into 1917 as most Americans think. Also the Doughboys came over with little to NO equipment that's how good their help was.

Again WW2 began in 1939 and not almost 1942 and if it were not for Pearl harbour then America would have not gotten involved at all. Even then it was almost like it was part time for the Americans in Europe.

The reason originally for the stupid gun regulations in Britain was fear of a Communist uprising like in Russia in 1917 then add in the peace activists which meant no re-arming after "The Great War" and the depression. History it seems was not learnt as they are still cutting the armed forces even today even with the growing Communist threat and the Islamists. Just glad I am not young now.

[Handloader109]

Sorry for the hijack

OP didn't mention dates, but I'll set you straight on a couple of things. Britain shouldn't forget about lend lease program, started in March 1941, not nearly 1942, and US gave Britain over 31 Billion worth of military supplies. That's close to half a trillion in today's money. Hitler had by that point pretty much given up on invading, but the UK didn't know that. Not saying that the US entering the war 'saved' Britain, I don't think Hitler would have invaded. But the UK would be sitting as an island with a German Europe. Russia would have stopped the advance, but there would be a line way over in the east of europe between the two. US entering the war reversed the war's outcome. No if ands or buts. GB didn't have the manpower or the will to try an invasion of France.

And don't forget that Japan gave Roosevelt an excuse for declaring war on both countries. there were a LOT of Americans wanting to stay neutral. He could have only declared war on Japan. BTW, how many times did Churchill visit the US during the war? way more than most people would guess. Great museum in London


Some wonderful posting about things the poster clearly know nothing about.

Oh least I forget America came to Britains rescue Yeah right. Funny thing is that "The great War" (WW1) actually began in 1914 and not well into 1917 as most Americans think. Also the Doughboys came over with little to NO equipment that's how good their help was.

Again WW2 began in 1939 and not almost 1942 and if it were not for Pearl harbour then America would have not gotten involved at all. Even then it was almost like it was part time for the Americans in Europe.

The reason originally for the stupid gun regulations in Britain was fear of a Communist uprising like in Russia in 1917 then add in the peace activists which meant no re-arming after "The Great War" and the depression. History it seems was not learnt as they are still cutting the armed forces even today even with the growing Communist threat and the Islamists. Just glad I am not young now.

[Garyshome]

Watch something else like CNN or MSNBC!

[kbstenberg]

My wife keeps telling me. Facts don't sell movie tickets Drama does. Even if it is made up.
The other day I was watching a western movie. Every Indian had lever action rifle. Every one else had a rolling block or a BP rifle.

[Thumbcocker]

IIRC the U.S. declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Germany then declared war on the U.S. Hitler made the announcement without any consultation with the gerenal staff who freaked.

[waksupi]

My wife keeps telling me. Facts don't sell movie tickets Drama does. Even if it is made up.
The other day I was watching a western movie. Every Indian had lever action rifle. Every one else had a rolling block or a BP rifle.

That was pretty much fact. At the Little Big Horn, the natives were much better armed than the 7th Calvary were.

[BRobertson]

Some wonderful posting about things the poster clearly know nothing about.

Oh least I forget America came to Britains rescue Yeah right. Funny thing is that "The great War" (WW1) actually began in 1914 and not well into 1917 as most Americans think. Also the Doughboys came over with little to NO equipment that's how good their help was.

Again WW2 began in 1939 and not almost 1942 and if it were not for Pearl harbour then America would have not gotten involved at all. Even then it was almost like it was part time for the Americans in Europe.

The reason originally for the stupid gun regulations in Britain was fear of a Communist uprising like in Russia in 1917 then add in the peace activists which meant no re-arming after "The Great War" and the depression. History it seems was not learnt as they are still cutting the armed forces even today even with the growing Communist threat and the Islamists. Just glad I am not young now.

Typical attitude from a proud Brit that is jealous of America!!

My father, who is 94 yrs old, would argue the " part time" comment. He flew in the B-17 over Germany. They were getting shot up pretty bad trying to save your sorry country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob

[Artful]

Some wonderful posting about things the poster clearly know nothing about.

Oh least I forget America came to Britains rescue Yeah right. Funny thing is that "The great War" (WW1) actually began in 1914 and not well into 1917 as most Americans think. Also the Doughboys came over with little to NO equipment that's how good their help was.

When the Great War began the United States had proclaimed a united policy of strict neutrality
Our goal was to broker a peace and President Wilson sent his top aide Colonel House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_House) on repeated missions to the belligerents,
but both sides were so confident of victory that the peace was ignored.

When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania) in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, America demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. And Germany complied. Wilson repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_submarine_warfare), in violation of international law and U.S. of human rights.

Wilson realized he needed to enter the war in order to shape the peace; indeed in 1919 he successfully won a League of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations) at the Paris Peace Conference. In January 1917 Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. Which is what brought US into active participation. And remember prior to the Great War America wasn't set up with a military industrial complex to be the world police as we didn't have an empire to rule.

After the deaths of so many in the Great War, America wanted no more of European troubles and went into Isolationist mode.
When war broke out in Europe, US President Franklin Roosevelt (http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/franklin-d-roosevelt) recognised that the conflict threatened US security, and looked for ways to help the European democracies without direct involvement in the war. The people still wanted nothing to do with European warfare. This necessity increased in June 1940, when the Fall of France left Britain as the only democracy left standing.

In 1939, the Fourth Neutrality Act authorized the US to trade arms with belligerents provided that the countries paid in cash and collected them. In March 1941, Roosevelt moved further towards making the US the ‘arsenal of democracy’ with the Lend-Lease Act, which permitted the lending, leasing, selling, or bartering of Ships, arms, ammunition and food to “any country whose defence the President deems vital to the defence of the US.”

The US was sucked further towards the conflict when its navy and air force began to ‘escort’ British convoys which transported Lend-Lease material across the Atlantic (http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/battle-of-the-atlantic), protecting them from German submarines. Roosevelt’s announcement of a ‘shoot on sight’ policy in September 1941 following an attack on the USS Greer enraged isolationist senators; they alleged that Roosevelt was deliberately provoking skirmishes with the Germans.

Meanwhile, Churchill (http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/winston-churchill) repeatedly attempted to convince Roosevelt to actively enter the war. At the August 1941 Atlantic Conference, the two leaders composed a charter for the post-war world; Roosevelt tackled the thorny issue of the British Empire, promoting the recognition of “the right of all peoples to choose the government under which they will live.” It was then in December of 1941 that US after Pearl Harbor did actively declare war on the Axis.


Again WW2 began in 1939 and not almost 1942 and if it were not for Pearl harbour then America would have not gotten involved at all. Even then it was almost like it was part time for the Americans in Europe.

The reason originally for the stupid gun regulations in Britain was fear of a Communist uprising like in Russia in 1917 then add in the peace activists which meant no re-arming after "The Great War" and the depression. History it seems was not learnt as they are still cutting the armed forces even today even with the growing Communist threat and the Islamists. Just glad I am not young now.

And as for your choice of leaders who disarm the populace, I suggest a better education of history would have prevented that, but alas too late for you and now for America as well thanks to the liberals who have taken over the teaching of America's youth.

[doc1876]

if you want to see some real ****, see American Outlaws, I had a devil of a time trying to explain to my dil that it was all not true. She kept insisting that if they made a movie, it had to be , and how can they make a movie that is not true.
life just is hard sometimes

[Col4570]

Hi guys and gals,Shooting is alive and well here in the UK.As for those who get their Knickers in a twist over two wars that where won by countries cooperating.As for our" sorry country "What is that about?

[bikerbeans]

IMO, WWII started in 1931 when the Japanese started conquering Asia. The inept League of Nations did nothing about the far east war and things kept getting worse for the next ten years until dang near everybody on this planet was involved.

BB

[a.squibload]

Edited out my rant, I should know it's no use trying to shame Brits
for their treatment of Ireland. As for the thousands of Americans
killed fighting fascism I guess some consider it insufficient.

[Col4570]

There is no doubt that we would have gone under without the valuable input from the U S A.The brave souls who died are forever in our hearts along with those who died fighting Fascism from many places throughout the world.As for the Irish question,many people who gave to the Noraid fund should hang there heads in shame,your donations went straight to finance I R A acts of terrorism.

[jumbeaux]

Some wonderful posting about things the poster clearly know nothing about.

Oh least I forget America came to Britains rescue Yeah right. Funny thing is that "The great War" (WW1) actually began in 1914 and not well into 1917 as most Americans think. Also the Doughboys came over with little to NO equipment that's how good their help was.

Again WW2 began in 1939 and not almost 1942 and if it were not for Pearl harbour then America would have not gotten involved at all. Even then it was almost like it was part time for the Americans in Europe.

Sir you might check on your facts...recall something call "Lend Lease" ? America supplied a great deal of material at an enormous price...not only in dollars but also in blood (Merchant Marines etc). The Great War did start in 1914...several Americans served in the British Army before our "official" involvement in 1917...my dad's stepfather was a USMC Gunnery Sergeant that fought at the Battle of Bella Woods...he was wounded and gave everything but his life in defense of your homeland. My dad flew aboard a B24 Liberator Bomber as a kid (joined the USA at age 17...flew combat missions as an old man 19-20)...manned the top turret. When they were shot down by the Germans he spent a day or two in a raft and the next 10 months in the hospital...if America hadn't come to the aid of Britain...well y'all would be speaking German...heck y'all didn't exactly break your backs in Vietnam (my war)...that being said we have long stood together to keep this world free...Prayfully our nations will always assist each other...

rick

[a.squibload]

...As for the Irish question...

Hmm, sounds like a response from the 1760s about "the Colonies".
A weak excuse for oppression.

[RogerDat]

How did we get from a movie, based on a rather old (100 years) mystery series to a yank view of the brits attitudes toward firearms to the politics of WW1 and WW2 and then to the "Troubles" in Ireland. Frankly the UK does have a different culture, laws and attitudes than the US but unless I really made an effort to study them or lived there for an extended period I think commenting on their system would be like a virgin giving wedding night advice to the bride and groom.

Simply put the United Kingdom had over 500,000 military killed the US over 400,000 so yeah you could say we stick together when the going gets tough. We in the US were isolationist at the beginning of both wars, and the public still has a strong streak of that same sentiment today. I know congress in the initial years of WW2 was very much against US involvement. Roosevelt knew what needed to be done, and did a lot of back room deals to supply weapons to the allied forces and prepare our military for war. Japan screwed the pooch when they attacked and pulled us as a unified country into the war.

Then we got together and did what needed to be done, was not the first time, hopefully won't be the last time we stick together when the chips are all in. Nice to have friends you can count on.

[jumbeaux]

Brithunter's post is what got my hackles up...reread his post and I believe you will see why...

rick

[Col4570]

Hmm, sounds like a response from the 1760s about "the Colonies".
A weak excuse for oppression.
Been watching a Mel Gibson Movie eh.

[trapper9260]

There is no doubt that we would have gone under without the valuable input from the U S A.The brave souls who died are forever in our hearts along with those who died fighting Fascism from many places throughout the world.As for the Irish question,many people who gave to the Noraid fund should hang there heads in shame,your donations went straight to finance I R A acts of terrorism.
You are right about the IRA and it was the good old Kenedey sorry for the spelling but they where given money to the IRA to help them .how I found out was when I was Portsmouth,England and at a fish and chip place when I was in the navy in 80 that the one that waited on us as what state we where from and I said I was from MA at the time that I was told off for what I just stated.I told her do not blame me for what they done I have nothing to do with it.

[a.squibload]

Been watching a Mel Gibson Movie eh.

If it eases your guilt you can attribute my philosophical background
to having "watched a movie". Odd, though, that you should choose
an actor from another country once subjugated by yours.

[Brithunter]

Actually Britain paid every penny for that lease lend unlike the other "allies". Compare the crews in the RAF who's tours didn't end until they were either wounded to badly to fly, shot down and imprisoned, dead or the war ended. It was not a 30 trip tour.

I'll wager not many realise that many British troops were tied in in Northern Ireland keeping the IRA in line and making sure that Eire didn't invade. Remember Eire was also helping the Germans! just as much as they could. Before shipping out to the Far East dad was in NI and they could not even accept food from the locals as it was likely tainted, poisoned or contained ground glass. Nice folks the Irish!

As for choosing leaders ???? obviously one does not understand the system used. We are "allowed" to vote yes but whom is presented to stand for said vote is not our choice. Just like in the US those standing are chosen by those in control. If the vote actually could make a difference do you honestly believe we would be allowed a vote? The whole system is corrupt those who really make the decisions are hidden behind the scenes and our votes mean nothing.

America did not always help either. My fathers outfit was using water in their brake lines as they had no proper fluid. The Americans had plenty in fact they were dumping it in the sea but the British were not allowed to have any. I asked him which country he was in when this happened but he can no longer recall and does not recall telling me about this now. At 92 and after several strokes his memory is not what it used to be.

Vietnam was hardly a world threatening affair but I notice Korea was not mentioned and yes Britain was there.

Now I am not anti American I just don't swallow the line that America and only America saved us. There is still plenty of Anti English feeling in the US. A few years back I made enquiries about moving to America however being English obtaining a "Green Card" is rather involved. However if I was Irish then that's a different story all together .................................. much easier to get. It only reached the enquiry stage due to family health problems, dad was hospitalised again with another stroke which meant my leaving the place down south and the job to help care for him. I am now too old to make such a move.

[MtGun44]

Just a comment on "anti-English feeling". I have never heard anyone in the USA speaking
against the English, and the only things I can remember at all is a certain sadness at the
restrictions put on English citizens in the way of self defense, guns, hunting, and a lot of
the socialist things that have come along. Never negative against the people, per say, but
surprised and saddened at the loss of freedoms and rights that seem to be moving ahead
over there.
Now, as far as the American Revolution that started in 1776, we were subjected to some pretty ugly treatment
before and during that war and were very happy to kick out the British and go our own way. Best not to
spend too much time on that one if we want to avoid unpleasantness. BUT - by WW1 time frame,
most of that was by the wayside, and then and in WW2, we spent a lot of time working together
for the greater good.

Bill

[jumbeaux]

Brithunter do you believe that Britain would have defeated Germany without the United States ? Out of curiosity are you English or British ?

rick

[Col4570]

If it eases your guilt you can attribute my philosophical background
to having "watched a movie". Odd, though, that you should choose
an actor from another country once subjugated by yours.
Not to mention,Wounded Knee,The Trail Of Tears,The broken treaties.Fortunately we have moved on from these events to a more enlightened time.I have no guilt over what happened at those times,it would seem that you are living in a time warp and wish to carry on old enmities.

[Col4570]

Just a comment on "anti-English feeling". I have never heard anyone in the USA speaking
against the English, and the only things I can remember at all is a certain sadness at the
restrictions put on English citizens in the way of self defense, guns, hunting, and a lot of
the socialist things that have come along. Never negative against the people, per say, but
surprised and saddened at the loss of freedoms and rights that seem to be moving ahead
over there.
Now, as far as the American Revolution that started in 1776, we were subjected to some pretty ugly treatment
before and during that war and were very happy to kick out the British and go our own way. Best not to
spend too much time on that one if we want to avoid unpleasantness. BUT - by WW1 time frame,
most of that was by the wayside, and then and in WW2, we spent a lot of time working together
for the greater good.

Bill

Well said Bill.

[a.squibload]

More enlightened but still controlling your neighbor.
Sorry, off-topic and maybe an outburst but I did think the
movie reference was a bit condescending. Must say I'm glad
WWII came out with our side on top, including you guys,
most of Europe, etc.

[dtknowles]

More enlightened but still controlling your neighbor.
Sorry, off-topic and maybe an outburst but I did think the
movie reference was a bit condescending. Must say I'm glad
WWII came out with our side on top, including you guys,
most of Europe, etc.

Not that it matters now but what do you think would have happened in Europe if the U.S. was never drawn into the war. I was thinking that the U.S.S.R. would still have defeated the Germans after a much longer war. Would the Russians have given the low lands and France back their independence? How long would Britain remained independent? Would be have continued the Lend Lease supplys to U.S.S.R.?

Tim

[Brithunter]

Brithunter do you believe that Britain would have defeated Germany without the United States ? Out of curiosity are you English or British ?

rick

Since it was made to be English here in the UK I have considered myself English. On the census forms there was Irish, Scottish etc but NO English so I added it. Of course pass ports are British and they seem to dole them out to anybody nowadays so being British doesn't mean what it used to.

Anyone who said they were English are said to be racist but if a Scotsman, Welshman or Irishman claims to be so that's OK it's only not ok to be English hence every form that I have to fill in that asks nationality I put English down. It's a bit like telling a Texan that he cannot be a Texan!

On my two visits to the US I found only people that were friendly. However the government with it's forms seem to discriminate against the English as I said being Irish would have made things a whole lot easier.

As for defeating the Germans in WW2 well perhaps if we had not wasted much resources on political gestures like the Russian conveys then Britain would not have been so in need of arms and supplies. The loses for thsi political gesture were huge yet those who did make it to Russia and back, the sailors, were not even allowed on shore in a lot of cases as the Russians did not want us there at all. It also appears that Russia didn't use much of the arms and equipment that was delivered. They didn't need it in fact. Without so much resources tied up with this political gesturing there would have been much more men and resources to bring to the front against the Tri Axis in Europe.

[Wayne Smith]

Not exactly true that the Russians didn't need the Lend Lease support. Even Stalin stated the the Soviet army traveled on the backs of American trucks.
"Political decisions" are and were made to support the war effort when we have a unified government. Not everybody agrees with the needs of strategy over tactics. Especially tacticians.