The Republic of Ireland took on the IRA with an unarmed police force.
The RoI came out on top.
As great as that is, that is a different country with different politics & culture.
I think our problems here are more entrenched & diverse than the IRA.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Republic of Ireland took on the IRA with an unarmed police force.
The RoI came out on top.
As great as that is, that is a different country with different politics & culture.
I think our problems here are more entrenched & diverse than the IRA.
Shame on you for taking away the rhetorical impact of his anecdote.
Unfortunately the police do not possess the ability to psychically sense crimes in progress nor to instantaneously teleport to location.I would disagree. Technically police are supposed to deal with that.
Why anyone would wish to posess an instrument of death is just beyond me.
It's one thing about America I'll never understand.
Thanks for the reply Zardoz. I imagine we will never agree.
As I see it I can live free or I can live in fear. I can be strong or I can be weak.
To give in to the need (or the use) of weaponry is to surrender ones being to fear.
The use of weapons and physical force is the way of the inherently weak, the fearful.
Badshah Khan, Ghandi, King - these were men of bravery. Free men.
Weapons = no freedom.
Just that simple.
Just goes to show how backward yanks are. They also have the death penalty still. I think they all want to grow up to be John Wayne look alikes, Pilgrim.
Because no one is going to just march me and my family into cattlecars bound for death camps. Not without a fight, a much preferable fate. Unlike Germany in the 30's, I live where I have the right to defend myself, and I will do so.
When I can't, then I know the death camps are inevitable.
That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People.
No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.
Well, like I said, it only takes once.
We'll have no way of knowing that until studies are done of responsible gun owners, too.
I mean, we've all heard the statistics on crime and accidents. But does anyone know how many law-abiding people own a firearm and never have cause to regret it?
Shame on you for taking away the rhetorical impact of his anecdote.
Unfortunately the police do not possess the ability to psychically sense crimes in progress nor to instantaneously teleport to location.
Because no one is going to just march me and my family into cattlecars bound for death camps. Not without a fight, a much preferable fate. Unlike Germany in the 30's, I live where I have the right to defend myself, and I will do so. When I can't, then I know the death camps are inevitable. That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People. No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.
That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People. No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.
I don't know. If so, it's not by much. Also, this isn't really an argument for handgun ownership.
And how often is it harmful when people have guns?
Legally held guns get pinched and then used to kill people. People kill people with legal and illegal weapons.
If guns are not legal it's easier for the police to take them out of circulation.
That is just it, drugs are illegal and they are plentiful in the states. You will never be able to remove anything in the states if there is a demand. Outlawing guns will only take them away from law abiding folks.
Actually outlawing guns will only make the black market more profitable. :sorry1:
That's not the point. The point is how often it helps compared to how often it harms.
I don't think that's a relevant question. The question is how many people are helped by having a gun and how many people are harmed.
I agree with ae.We should consider also how often is it not harmful when people have guns. If it is overwhelmingly less harmful to own guns, we need to consider other alternatives than restrictions that take away liberty.