Real Danger.

I'd very much like to see a breakdown of who perpetrated the violence in Northern Ireland and against whom it was perpetrated because the raw numbers can be misleading without context. I would not be surprised to find out that the majority of the violence stems from attacks and retaliation between opposing paramilitary groups and that most of those killed or attacked were, in one way or another, affiliated with one of those various groups. I would further be unsurprised to learn that violence against ordinary people who are not affiliated or involved with the IRA, UVF, British military, or other such group are at much lower risk and that violence against such people is relatively rare.

In the United States, however, we do not and have not been in a state of civil war for nearly 150 years so violence between organized paramilitary groups is quite uncommon (about the closest you'll come is violence between criminal gangs in large cities). However, random acts of violent crime is becoming increasingly common and thus many people who are not involved with paramilitary groups, organized crime, or other such dangerous affiliations still have a very legitimate need to own and carry a gun for self-defense.

A similar comparison would be between the United States today and the United States of the 1920's and 1930's. The violent crime rate of the 20's and 30's was fairly high due to Prohibition-era organized crime and Depression-era motorized bandits. While this period of time is often thought of as "lawless," what many people do not realize is that the violence was overwhelmingly between the criminals and police or amongst the criminals themselves. The average law-abiding citizen of 20's and 30's America actually had very little to fear in comparison to the average law-abiding citizen of today's America. So, as you can see, context makes a huge difference.
 
I grew up in the NJ/NY/PA area which has a few of the most violent cities in the US and where private gun ownership was/ is severely resticted. I now live in a semi rural area in the south where everyone it seems owns guns and violent crimes like murder and assault are few and far between. Do the math...
 
As for myself, most of my guns are primarily a hobby. If it were for defense only, I would probably have only three. One handgun, one rifle, and one shotgun would be enough for any conceivable threat to me.
Click to expand...

Guns were a hobby and are a hobby, but my first purchase(s) were just as your quote describes. However, that is the bare minimum, I would want your list plus a mousegun as an example as a "backup" gun and/or NY reload, I had to get a weapon for the wife, and to start I like having a HD and SD handgun or I could say a CCW handgun but also a 'outdoors' gun(bigger, longer barrel). Therefore, I use your list and add three pistols.

That is how I started anyways...random order: shotgun, rifle, three revolvers, and a derringer

PS- I have always preferred revolvers even as a child when I couldn't own a weapon("If it's not broken, don't fix it.":cool:) Everyone of those six firearms serves a separate purpose if I broke it down that fine.
 
I grew up in the NJ/NY/PA area which has a few of the most violent cities in the US and where private gun ownership was/ is severely resticted. I now live in a semi rural area in the south where everyone it seems owns guns and violent crimes like murder and assault are few and far between. Do the math...
Click to expand...

It truly is a wonder why they can't change their tone! Are you talking philly? I always figured PA was pretty well rounded besides there as much(sortof like NYC and part of NY). I Know MA, NJ, NY, and HI are bad though(as far as I am concerned).
 
Quote. Webleymkv. I'd very much like to see a breakdown of who perpetrated the violence in Northern Ireland and against whom it was perpetrated because the raw numbers can be misleading without context. I would not be surprised to find out that the majority of the violence stems from attacks and retaliation between opposing paramilitary groups and that most of those killed or attacked were, in one way or another, affiliated with one of those various groups. I would further be unsurprised to learn that violence against ordinary people who are not affiliated or involved with the IRA, UVF, British military, or other such group are at much lower risk and that violence against such people is relatively rare.


More than 3,600 people were killed during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Between 1969 and the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 about 2,000 civilians, 1,000 members of the security forces and 600 paramilitaries died.


Unfortunately most were civilians.
 
2000 civilians over a 30 year span is probably less than were killed in any one of our major cities, manta49; during that span of time, Chicago and NYC had draconian gun laws.
 
Chicago for comparison

Quoted from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-03/news/ct-met-chicago-crime-statistics-20110103_1_superintendent-jody-weis-chicago-homicides-violent-crimes


Chicago homicides in 2010 fell to lowest level since 1965
Overall, violent crime in city dropped about 10% from 2009, Weis announces
January 03, 2011|By Jeremy Gorner, Tribune reporter
*

Chicago police Superintendent Jody Weis largely credited computerized research that helps police determine where violent crimes are likely to occur for what he called a historic drop in homicides in 2010.

Homicides fell to 435, the city's lowest total in almost half a century and a 5.4 percent drop from 460 in 2009. That marked the fewest murders since Chicago recorded 395 homicides in 1965, Weis said at a news conference Monday.
Click to expand...

So, manta49, about your "Troubles" argument... It isn't really persuasive, here.
 
Its not a competition. Sort of shoots a hole in posts telling me how violent the UK is compared with America. When a city has more violent deaths than a country that has being in a violent conflict for 30 years.

PS. Strange one of the things that put Americans of visiting N Ireland was the risk of violence.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I don't know, manta49... since the recent spate of articles about systemic under-reporting in the UK (to save government face, ostensibly) it is hard to know what is going on over there.

As far as competiton goes, you have multiple threads where you mention how truly dangerous it was where you live, and how Americans would have a hard time processing such conditions. If you want to make such arguments, you should check your comparisons beforehand.

From post #1 of this (your own) very thread:
There are a lot of posts on the forum the threat of violence how many guns they keep in the house for use against perceived threats. Some times i think some get a bit carried away threat and how to deal with it. Where i live there is and was real reason to feel threatened. Yet i never heard the sort of some would say over the top concern about getting attacked ect here.
Click to expand...
 
Manta49 as an American I take my right to keep and bear arms very seriously. Most of the folks who spend time on this forum feel the same. I live in very safe rural environment that would make Northern Ireland a very dangerous place by comparison. I have several weapons that can, and will be used to protect myself and family should the need arise. I understand this does not make sense to you. Living in a violent country, in a very violent world with no legal means to protect oneself makes no sense to me.

I have heard and read many comments by UK citizens indicating their disdain for our unenlightened views regarding the right of American citizens to own, and God forbid, even carry weapons. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is going to be very hard to sell it here.
 
I said perceived threats because most on the forum carry because someone might randomly attack them in their home or on the street.

It was a real threat here because people were targeted information was gathered and a plan made to murder them. A lot of them were informed buy the police that they were being targeted to be murdered but they went about there business regardless usually unarmed.

Example below.

In 1976 the IRA gunned down the 10 workmen by the side of the road at Kings mills in south Armagh. The attack was planned and executed from the Republic and the killers sought safe haven there afterwards.



There are hundreds of other examples of planed killings carried out buy both sides. I am not critising just tring to understand.

My question was if you were under a similar threat how would you manage to carry on unarmed. When some on the forum cant manage to take a shower or go to church without being armed.


Another example bellow this happened around 10 miles form me.

A man was shot through the heart as he tried to defend his family from two men who had forced their way into his home to steal guns, a court has heard.

Financial advisor Geoff Kerr was shot dead in Templepatrick on 27 April 2009.


PS It seems to be a American thing the right to bear arms. I am not criticizing just trying to understand.
 
Last edited:
How would we manage to carry on unarmed? The condescension dripping from the question makes it hard to answer civilly, but I will give it a shot. We Americans have a history of surviving, even thriving in the face of adversity. Hell we often bail out our more enlightened friends when they need help. I imagine if we did not have the legal right to protect ourselves from organized thugs we would manage just fine. Fortunately we still have the right to protect ourselves in this country. God bless America!
 
Quote How would we manage to carry on unarmed? The condescension dripping from the question makes it hard to answer civilly, but I will give it a shot. We Americans have a history of surviving, even thriving in the face of adversity. Hell we often bail out our more enlightened friends when they need help. I imagine if we did not have the legal right to protect ourselves from organized thugs we would manage just fine. Fortunately we still have the right to protect ourselves in this country. God bless America!


(We have the right to protect ourselves here as well ). The difference i can manage to have a shower and walk down the street without felling the need to have my handgun beside me. But as i said its up to the individual.
 
Quote. What made these targeted people become targets.

Anything wrong religion. Civilian working in a army base. Of duty soldiers.
Prison officers. Criticizing a person or organisation.


Example working in army base.



Example wroTwenty years ago tomorrow seven construction workers died instantly as an IRA bomb exploded at Teebane crossroads on the road between Omagh and Cookstown as they returned from work at Lisanelly army barracks.

Example wrong religion.

The ten workmen, aged between 19 and 58, had been in a minibus driving home from work at a textile factory in Glenanne when the vehicle was stopped. An IRA gang asked one man identified as a Catholic to “get out of the way” before machine gunning the rest of the 11 men.

Ten died. Only Alan Black survived despite being shot 18 times.
 
Last edited:
Mantra carrying a gun is a personal choice here. Most of us do not shower with our weapons and many of us do not carry often, if at all. I do not live in fear. The difference is as a free man I have the right to do so if I want to, in most of my country, and in doing so I pose no threat to anyone who does not wish to do me harm. That you can manage to take care of personal hygiene and walk down the street unarmed without feeling threatened is a good thing. It sounds like your Government is often ineffective in protecting its citizens though. What if you did feel threatened? What would you do to protect yourself?
 
Manta. I am not even sure of your point. Are you comparing the situation in Northern Ireland with some other situation? I would then propose this, if the citizens of Northern Ireland were allowed to carry a firearm in the same manner as people in the US then the situation in N. Ireland would be different, how different is hard to determine at this point. That said you are comparing an environment where one side has historically perceive things as an occupation by a foreign force. This is not a reality in the US so attempting to make some comparison is fruitless. The fact of the matter is right or wrong, the British government does not trust it's subjects to own firearms. With this reality, one side still obtained weapons and found other means to wage war. At the same time so did Loyalists.
Lastly, you have a situation that lingers, faintly if much at all compared to the last 50 years that has its roots from the 1600s. Again, hard to compare to the US whose conflict with England ended completely after our Civil War in 1865.
 
manta49, my ex didn't have any prior reason to expect to get mugged at a drive-up ATM, but that happened to her. She had a Beretta in the car, so the robbers fled when she drew. (She could not just drive away, robbery team had pinned her in with two pickups).

She didn't have it on her person when a pair of stalkers followed her home from the beach one day. Luckily, their timing was bad, and they ran into our shepherd-rottweiler mix, first, which provided enough delay for my ex to retrieve her Beretta from the house and run them off.

My best friend didn't specifically expect to need a gun, but it still came in handy when three guys tried to carjack him.

My cousin did not have a gun when a serial rapist came to her home. Luckily, she did have a big, protective German Shepherd. Guy ran away.

My take on it is, if I can carry, I do. I will probably never need it. Then again, odds were, my ex, my friend, and my cousin would never need one - until they did. (I realize it was a dog, not a gun, in my cousin's case, but the same concept of an equalizer or force multiplier still applies.)

And I am a very good shot, so I would feel really stupid if I had left it at home the one time I actually did need it.
 
Quote. Government is often ineffective in protecting its citizens though. What if you did feel threatened? What would you do to protect yourself?


Someone that has being told buy the police that are under threat have different ways of improving there security.
Government can make money available to increase security at your house. Increased police patrols. There is a scheme that the government will buy your house and move you to a secure house.
You can apply for a personal protection weapon.

Example below.

•There must be evidence (substantiated by the PSNI) that it is unsafe for you or a member of your household who lives with you to continue to live in the house, because that person has been directly or specifically threatened or intimidated and as a result is at risk of serious injury or death. A certificate stating this clearly, signed by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or authorised signatory, must be provided to the Housing Executive.
 
Regarding those who were not warned, if the criteria for being targeted can be anything, the violence is barely more than statistically random. So if similar rates of violence occur targeted or not is there an actual difference in the end result or threat level? Additionally,the specific examples you have noted have all be targets of attacks here in the US and I would imagine most places.

Being warned of an impending attack, armed or not, and going about business as usual seems to be a poor choice. Comparing people who carry firearms for protection against a statistically possible threat to those who were warned of an attack and chose not to do anything, whether arming themselves, changing their routines or seeking safety elsewhere, is comparing apples and oranges.

Targeting randomly(ie anything can get you targeted) makes the threat no more or less real to the general public, the end result is still an attack on someone. People can either recognize that they may be the target of an attack for whatever reason and attempt to prepare for it, or they can go about their business and ignore it. In either case(N. Ireland or US), the statistical chances are not so low that they can simply be ignored and some people would rather not leave their lives in the hands of the probability of being attacked or not attacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top