As suggested by LC & IB Angrywebmaster, we took at look at some Limey fucktard screaming for somebody else to go fight a war for him. Because you may rest assured that a leftist fascist would never ever put his or her money where his or her mouth was.
We can’t really do a word-by-word Fisking of it since most of it is mindless blather that would force us to repeat ourself ad nauseam, but nevertheless, here we go:
For starters, note the picture of, as the caption states, “a man on a rifle range.”
We can only say one thing: The elderly gentleman in that picture needs to find himself another firing range because, surely, it can’t be much fun going shooting at a place where they don’t even allow you to insert a magazine in your Scary Black Rifle. More likely, we’re looking at a picture of a gentleman checking out the sights on a prospective purchase at one of those Scary Gun Shows. But hey, why ask that idiots expounding on firearms actually have the faintest idea what they’re talking about?
Last week, Starbucks asked its American customers to please not bring their guns into the coffee shop. This is part of the company’s concern about customer safety and follows a ban in the summer on smoking within 25 feet of a coffee shop entrance and an earlier ruling about scalding hot coffee.
Actually, no. But when you’re a Limey fucktard, you probably can’t be arsed to keep up with the facts before writing an article. Starbucks’ “please don’t come waving around your guns in our stores anymore” press release was not in the least bit a result of concern about customer safety. It was all about “hey, if you guys want to have a Gun Pride parade it’s fine with us, but could you please have it somewhere else than in our coffee shop?”
Although it was brave of Howard Schultz, the company’s chief executive, to go even this far in a country where people are better armed and only slightly less nervy than rebel fighters in Syria,
Oh, so you’ll give us that? At least you acknowledge that law-abiding gun owners in the United States never cut out the hearts of our enemies and ate them, nor did we ever gas them with sarin. That’s awfully nice of you.
That’s America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC’s navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention?
We’d immediately suggest that you quit thinking like that and start obsessing about something more Europeon. Like the correct curvature of cucumbers. We’d suggest that mainly for your own safety because, honestly, if you really want to go all out on it, you might find Americans even less accepting of foreigners trying to take our guns away than we are of our own countrymen in Washington DC trying the same thing. And that’s saying something.
As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.
The children of the Navy Yard? Did we miss something?
The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn’t qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.
We’re not even going to start debunking your carefully hand-picked “number”, since it’s not even worth the time. Suffice it to say that said number, even if it’s remotely accurate, which we very much doubt, includes goblins shot down while attempting to commit a crime, suicidal maniacs who would have killed themselves by other means if no gun had been available and gang bangers shooting each other dead. All of whom we don’t really give an honest shit about. Except the suicides, which are tragic. But that’s no argument for banning the guns they shot themselves with, unless you are going to ban Tylenol, plastic bags, gas stoves, rail road crossings, rivers, bridges, bodies of water, knives, tall buildings and such as well.
If you want to wave a number about the “toll” of allowing law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves, kindly find one where the only victims counted are innocent citizens murdered with guns in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Yesterday, 100 million law-abiding, gun-owning Americans didn’t murder anybody.
So let’s take their guns away!
To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it’s worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.
That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US is a staggering fact,
It is indeed! It means that the Armed Forces of the United States of America are so damned efficient at NOT getting their own soldiers killed (while winning all of their wars) that the number of soldiers dead in combat over more than two centuries of frequent warfare is actually lower than the number of people getting offed at home in 45 years.
Of course, a Brit might have a bit of trouble understanding that concept of not mass murdering your own soldiers due to ridiculously inept leadership. What, with Passchendaele, the Somme, the Crimean War and all that.
And your point?
Should we outlaw Britain waging war ever again? No need. You’ve already made it impossible for you to do so yourselves. Which is why you have to come ask us to fight for you on the rare occasions that you find something you want to fight about. And we oblige you. You’re welcome.
This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.
Then by all means come do something about it, Henry. Oh? You meant for somebody else to come do something?
Now go suck your thumb again, you ponce.