European view.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.7 million folks. Now compare that to New York City (A city with very, very restrictive gun laws) with a population of 8.9 million.

I would bet that the gun laws of NYC are even more limiting than those in Ireland, yet the crime rate in NYC is higher (not sure about this, but lets assume for the sake of argument). Why? I have no idea, but it seems to me that crime is tied more to population density than gun laws.

Call me crazy, but there it is.
 
johnbt. Quote.


"But i wont get into N Ireland politics that would take a lifetime."

Longer, if you count all the years since my ancestors were forced off their land by the Scottish colonists brought by the English in the 17th century.

John . I would reply to that but i don't want to get the post closed down.
 
Our right to keep and bear arms is there because free men are armed. It is not possible to make slaves or subjects out of an armed populace. It is really that simple.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but that statement is just factually wrong. Tell it to the indians. They were armed, at times better armed than those facing them. Yet eventually they surrendered. No one wrenched the rifles from their hands. Eventually they had had enough and laid them down themselves.

It IS possible to enslave an armed populace. It's just difficult.
 
Yet eventually they surrendered. No one wrenched the rifles from their hands
Click to expand...

I assume your talking about American Indians here. They surrendered in many cases because they had families to think about; wives, children, the elderly.
They were trying to avoid annihilation.

If there had just been the warriors, it would have gone quite differently, I suspect. Also, I doubt the average Indian was as well-armed as the whites were.
 
Quote:
Yet eventually they surrendered. No one wrenched the rifles from their hands
Click to expand...


I assume your talking about American Indians here. They surrendered in many cases because they had families to think about; wives, children, the elderly.
They were trying to avoid annihilation.
Click to expand...

That is my exact point. The price of resistance is often more than the resistor will pay. Armed or not.

If there had just been the warriors, it would have gone quite differently, I suspect. Also, I doubt the average Indian was as well-armed as the whites were
Click to expand...

At times they were. Little Bighorn comes to mind (the Indians had more repeating rifles than the 7th had rifles). Plymouth colony in 1620 for another (Matchlocks are crappy weapons.).
 
Howrya manta49, I'm from the Republic myself, good to see ya here! :)

You make a good point re: is fear of other people having guns the price you pay for having one yourself? Put another way, if we just banned them, then perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to have one so badly since you know the bad guys won't have them.

Leaving aside the common argument that you can never really stop the bad guys from getting them - lets assume you can for the moment - you still have the question of whether it's better that (a) both me and the bad guys should have guns or (b) neither of us should have them.

Well, it might seem like a great idea for no one to be armed. But the problem is, if no one is armed, then the the old matra "the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must" applies.

The gun is different from a lot of other weapons in that is can be a kind of equalizer: a 100lb girl is just as deadly with a gun as as 250lb man with a gun. So on the surface it might seem like a bad thing that both sides are armed, but in fact from the victim's point of view, things are looking up!

In the Nanny state, all that matters is the body count - victim or perpetrator, no one cares, and therefore all guns are bad. But to the individual victim, it matters whose body it is.

To get a better explanation of what I'm saying here, google for "A Nation of Cowards" - it's a well known essay that discusses the ideas of gun control etc. - great read.
 
There's the flaw in your argument,,,

if we just banned them, then perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to have one so badly since you know the bad guys won't have them.
Click to expand...

Never in recorded history has a "ban" on anything,,,
Kept it out of the hands of law-breakers,,,
Just because it's illegal doesn't stop it.

In fact, history has always shown us,,,
The surest way to generate a black market,,,
Is to ban something and make it illegal to own or posess.

Just something to think about,,,

Aarond

.
 
Aside from the political reasons for gun possesion the main reason many Americans carry firearms is very simple. " when seconds count the police are minutes away".

John Wayne didn't call 911!
 
Manta, if the premise or conclusion is "do liberal firearms laws in the USA contribute to crime", I have two opinions:

1) By definition, the answer is "no". Committing crimes is the problem. If the idea is that it's "easy" to get a gun, that observation is immaterial, regardless of its veracity, because illegal things are already illegal, and if the laws are obeyed, then those illegal things do not take place. Illegal acts contribute to crime. Period. If the law of the land in the USA was "spell your name correctly, get a free machine gun", committing murder with that machine gun is still and always was a crime. Legal firearm owners that obey the laws are not the problem. It's people who do not obey the laws that are the problem. Making illegal things even more illegal is not a concern for those with the intent to break laws in the first place, and it is patently ridiculous to make more laws that only the law-abiding follow, when the law abiding were following the laws to begin with. We follow that up too often with treating the criminal as a victim, and indeed, treating the actual victims of crime as the criminal in some cases where self-defense was necessary

2) There is no "US gun law". I feel this is something our friends in other countries forget sometimes. The laws in my state are not the laws of other states. Some country wide laws do indeed exist but that is hardly the whole picture. "Liberal" gun laws in the USA are a matter of debate; certainly US laws are 'liberal' compared to some other nations, but in the context of our federal and state constitutions you must take the term 'liberal gun laws' with a grain of salt. Certainly I do not feel that my state's firearms laws are 'liberal' in the sense you mean, as they are arguably in violation of the highest law in the land. This ties in with my point 1), in which laws that only affect the law-abiding are made in the name of deterring 'crime' but which do nothing to curb the actions of the criminally minded.
 
No need to be condescending. I simply pointed out your assertion that the Indians laid down their weapons even though they were well-armed to be open to debate
Click to expand...

No intention to be condescending, and I do apologize for offending you. Just making sure my point was clear. I said "at times" because at times natives were better armed than their opponents. My examples weren't the only times.

I said nothing about being "well armed". The quote I was challenging was:

It is not possible to make slaves or subjects out of an armed populace. It is really that simple
Click to expand...

He didn't make an issue of the quality of arms either. It is a factually false statement because history resounds with instances of people who laid down their arms and subjected themselves to enslavement, subservience or even just defeat.

I just chose the American Indian as an example because it was front of mind. I do not see how it is debatable that they did, in fact, finally lay down their arms.
 
Of all the talented verbiage in this post, I think divil presented his points best. That would make him, most definitely, a 'smooth talking divil'.

Those Irish...if it wasn't for whiskey, they'd rule the world. I don't remember who said that, but I wasn't the first.
 
You feel safe walking the streets in your country. I do on mine as well. I have a HGP and can carry anytime I choose to. That doesn't mean I carry everyday, sleep with my firearm, or take it inside the shower with me. I however like the choice to be able to carry a firearm legally.

Criminals are not allowed to carry firearms. That doesn't stop them. I would bet that I could have a gun in a day in your country if I wanted one and had the money regardless of legalities. That is the thing about criminals. They don't play by the same rules as regular law abiding people.

Most guns in the US are not illegal; very few actually in my opinion. The person carrying it or altering it makes it illegal. People commit crimes. The gun does not commit the crime.
 
No worries, lawnboy.

I still would hold that the Indians were beaten less because they laid down their arms, but more because of smallpox and other diseases, displacement from ancestral territory, competition for game, and a mistaken belief that if they surrendered their families would be better off.
 
Last edited:
I just chose the American Indian as an example because it was front of mind. I do not see how it is debatable that they did, in fact, finally lay down their arms.
Click to expand...

In a very simple nutshell that does no real justice to the complexities of the issue, yes they did in fact allow themselves to be effectively disarmed, and were therefore defeated or at least were no longer a threat. This is a fairly good illustration of my point. There were effectively disarmed and were then able to be subjegated. The one followed the other. An armed populace or people can not be enslaved or subjegated. They were no longer armed in any real sense and were able to be run over.

My point was not, and was never intended to be, that a superior force could never in any circumstance wear down a smaller force and defeat them. I thought this to be self evident. Perhaps I should have stated an armed populace can not be enslaved or made subjects of by it's own government, however I wil stand by my original statement. "Live free or die" comes to mind. There is always a choice. If someone, or a group of someone's decides to lay down their arms and surrender they have made a choice. They are no longer free, and they no longer have as a last resort the use of arms. They may be dealt with by the ones who defeated them as the victors see fit. If they refuse to be subjegated they may be wiped out, buried, and built over (as has happened many times), but they remained free men untill death. Our founding documents recognise a God given right to arms for a reason.

My own opinion is that the Second Ammendment in conjunction with the entirety of our Consitution, and Declaration of Independence for that matter, lay out very effectively what is expected of us as a nation of free people. Adhereance to who and what we are will keep us free, while continuing to permit chipping away will spell defeat at our own hands.

Can you think of or illustrate any example at any point in history where a people were enslaved or subjegated against their will without prior or concurrent disarmement by force or decree?
 
Our founding documents recognise a God given right to arms for a reason.
Click to expand...

JHenry, good points. The "reason" was not so the people of America could go out hunting to shoot game for food, it was freedom from a controlling government in the absolute or final sense. To many, dying as a free man is better than dying a slave. Of course, there is a great range between "free man and slave"... which is the fight that pro gun advocates fight every day legislatively and through our courts. No uprising or rebellion... but a fight all the same.
 
Can you think of or illustrate any example at any point in history where a people were enslaved or subjegated against their will without prior or concurrent disarmement by force or decree
Click to expand...

I agree in the abstract, but you're also describing every war ever fought, too
 
No, not really. I am not describing anything in that statement at all.

I am inquiring. I am asking for an example that would disprove the point. I am not aware of one. I have no knowledge of a people or populace who were enslaved or subjugated against their will absent the prior or concurrent disarmament by their eventual masters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top