Guns save lives thread

[Guest]

The British were brutal with slaves during the 1600's ...

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland's population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain's solution was to auction them off as well. http://www.globalres...te-slaves/31076

Tell me something I didn't know.

I am no defender of the British/English.

However, finger waging from the Americans about how they blazed a trail of slave emancipation is just plain factually wrong.

Br Cornelius

[Beckys_Mom]

Tell me something I didn't know.

I didn't know that until recently...I caught the tail end of Irish slaves on a late night programme..I never knew anything about it..So I then looked it up to read a bit more about it..

[Guest]

The British/English always have been a terrible bunch - even to their own.

We never had a real revolution and it shows.

Br Cornelius

[Beckys_Mom]

The British/English always have been a terrible bunch - even to their own.

We never had a real revolution and it shows.

Br Cornelius

Makes my stomach turn reading about how brutal they were back in the 1600's ..

Edited June 23, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[+DieChecker]

The British were brutal with slaves during the 1600's ...

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland's population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain's solution was to auction them off as well. http://www.globalres...te-slaves/31076

Makes you wonder if those Irish victims were armed with rifles, if they would have been enslaved as easily?

[Guest]

Makes you wonder if those Irish victims were armed with rifles, if they would have been enslaved as easily?

Not really - the Irish had been in armed revolt since the British arrived, they never had a chance.

Br Cornelius

[Beckys_Mom]

Makes you wonder if those Irish victims were armed with rifles, if they would have been enslaved as easily?

Probably not lol

[Arbenol]

Too bad the criminal is going to live....

Fair play to the home owner. If someone's trying to break into your house you have every right to prevent that.

But why isn't it enough just to stop him? Why would the death of the burglar be the better outcome?

Maybe this lack of regard for the value of another human life is prevalent in US society. Maybe this is the real reason why Americans kill each other in such massive numbers. Maybe this glorification of violence is why much of the world sees America as uncivilised and morally retarded.

[+DieChecker]

Not really - the Irish had been in armed revolt since the British arrived, they never had a chance.

Br Cornelius

Reading up on this time, it seems that by 1649 that the only city in Ireland left to the English was Dublin. And it was due to Oliver Cromwell's campaign into Ireland and subjegation (Taking away all weapons?) that resulted in tens, or hundreds of thousands of Irish being sent off to the Colonys. Those sent off to the Colonys before 1649 seem to have been war captives and political prisoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland

It doesn't seem like they, "didn't have a chance". It seems that the Irish lost due to political problems within their alliance with the Pope and other Catholic nations, and so the better run English military simply took over.

The fall of Galway saw the end of organised resistance to the Cromwellian conquest, but fighting continued as small units of Irish troops launched guerrilla attacks on the Parliamentarians.

.....

By early 1651, it was reported that no English supply convoys were safe if they travelled more than two miles outside a military base. In response, the Parliamentarians destroyed food supplies and forcibly evicted civilians who were thought to be helping the tories.

Seems like, dispite having overwhelming numbers, better equipment, including cannon and ships, the Irish guerrilla war was quite effective. I'd suggest that if such happened in the US, that a guerilla war would be equally as successful. Dispite air supperiority, and weapon supperiority, guerilla fighters are impossible to root out without extensive infantry action.

[Guest]

It doesn't seem like they, "didn't have a chance". It seems that the Irish lost due to political problems within their alliance with the Pope and other Catholic nations, and so the better run English military simply took over.

Which contradicts my point on armed insurrection against a government in what way ???

A bunch of uncoordinated insurgents couldn't displace the British for over 3 centuries - it took the British to eventually give up.

Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

Fair play to the home owner. If someone's trying to break into your house you have every right to prevent that.

But why isn't it enough just to stop him? Why would the death of the burglar be the better outcome?

Maybe this lack of regard for the value of another human life is prevalent in US society. Maybe this is the real reason why Americans kill each other in such massive numbers. Maybe this glorification of violence is why much of the world sees America as uncivilised and morally retarded.

I think it is a failing of our penal system. Instead of rehabilitating criminals into useful members of society. They just house them and allow them to network together and train each other. So when a "professional", or "career" criminal gets out of jail he goes back to what he knows. It is an often talked about problem, but nothing is ever done about it.

Thus the average gun owner probably suspects that the criminal will likely continue to be a criminal, and if he is dead, it is not a monumental loss to society. And pretty much everyone agrees with this other then those who perceive doing anything to a criminal is Unjust, or Racist, or Unfair... usually in naivety based on skin color or economic back ground.

Also many believe that killing a criminal is some kind of deterent. But, it seems by crime rates that criminals don't watch the News to be detered, and don't read the News either. Or, perhaps just believe that they are "Too Smart" to get shot.

There is also some truth to the idea that if caught a criminal will return at some point for vengence. This is a true worry, as sometimes the criminal only does a year or so, and then there is nothing to stop them from some kind of vengence. Many criminals are denied Parol for this very reason, they are still deemed a risk to the community/society/individual victim.

[+DieChecker]

Which contradicts my point on armed insurrection against a government in what way ???

A bunch of uncoordinated insurgents couldn't displace the British for over 3 centuries - it took the British to eventually give up.

Br Cornelius

Huh? They were very, very successful. They pushed the English out of Ireland, and only lost the follow on war (Cromwell) because their funding ran out and their partners bailed on them. The follow on guerilla war after the war collapsed was very, very successful.

I'd suspect the failure of the Irish to get rid of the English after that had something to do with all their guns being taken away, and the fact that somewhere between 50% and 70% of them died in the war, died of the plague, or were shipped off to the New World. With probably 8 out of every 10 men gone, it would seem there was not a lot of fight left in them. Especially with no weapons.

Proving the point that small arms used by insurgents is a winning form of action, hard to put down. Only the conquering of the whole island, and disarmament, and loosing 80% of the men allowed the English to establish their command over Ireland.

And if you read my earlier link, the only reason the guerilla war ended was because the English started to outright kill Irish civilians, and starve entire villages to death. So the Irish guerillas accepted the English terms to end hostilities and most left for the continent. Further weakening the Irish position, as the only ones willing to fight left....

Edited June 23, 2013 by DieChecker

[ciriuslea]

I think you might find that the UK banned slavery first and the USA hung onto it for longer. Segregation in the south was also slavery in all but name and carried on for over a century after slavery was officially banned. I really don't think there's to much to be shouting about here.

And yes I am very happy to criticize the UK for its colonial misdeeds - I am an equal opportunities critic

Br Cornelius

very true, I had assumed the Quakers to be American's for some reason when in fact they were all nationalities, as what ended with Wilberforce and the abolition had started many decades earlier, The first anti-slavery statement by Dutch and German Quakers was signed at Germantown, Pennsylvania in 1688. Following this, English Quakers had begun to express their official disapproval of the slave trade since 1727 and promote reforms. From the 1750s, a number of Quakers in Britain's American colonies also began to oppose slavery, calling on English Quakers to take action, and encourage their fellow citizens, including Quaker slave owners, to improve conditions for slaves, educate their slaves in Christianity, reading and writing, and gradually emancipate them.

[Guest]

Huh? They were very, very successful. They pushed the English out of Ireland, and only lost the follow on war (Cromwell) because their funding ran out and their partners bailed on them. The follow on guerilla war after the war collapsed was very, very successful.

I'd suspect the failure of the Irish to get rid of the English after that had something to do with all their guns being taken away, and the fact that somewhere between 50% and 70% of them died in the war, died of the plague, or were shipped off to the New World. With probably 8 out of every 10 men gone, it would seem there was not a lot of fight left in them. Especially with no weapons.

Proving the point that small arms used by insurgents is a winning form of action, hard to put down. Only the conquering of the whole island, and disarmament, and loosing 80% of the men allowed the English to establish their command over Ireland.

And if you read my earlier link, the only reason the guerilla war ended was because the English started to outright kill Irish civilians, and starve entire villages to death. So the Irish guerillas accepted the English terms to end hostilities and most left for the continent. Further weakening the Irish position, as the only ones willing to fight left....

You can paint it whatever way you like, they failed to displace the British for over three centuries. This was mainly due to the fact that it was an internally divided nation (one chief invited strongbow into Ireland to win a local skirmish). They never could form a well organized nation because they fairly much hated each other as much as the British. There are powerful lessons about the power of a Bureaucratic state against rebels there.

It is generally the occupier who gives up because they got what they wanted in the first place.

The American war of independence is an interesting exception, but there are powerful reasons to believe that the British occupational army conspired to lose the war to allow the Masonic experiment to play out.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 23, 2013 by Guest

[Beckys_Mom]

Huh? They were very, very successful. They pushed the English out of Ireland, and only lost the follow on war (Cromwell) because their funding ran out and their partners bailed on them. The follow on guerilla war after the war collapsed was very, very successful.

I'd suspect the failure of the Irish to get rid of the English after that had something to do with all their guns being taken away, and the fact that somewhere between 50% and 70% of them died in the war, died of the plague, or were shipped off to the New World. With probably 8 out of every 10 men gone, it would seem there was not a lot of fight left in them. Especially with no weapons.

Proving the point that small arms used by insurgents is a winning form of action, hard to put down. Only the conquering of the whole island, and disarmament, and loosing 80% of the men allowed the English to establish their command over Ireland.

And if you read my earlier link, the only reason the guerilla war ended was because the English started to outright kill Irish civilians, and starve entire villages to death. So the Irish guerillas accepted the English terms to end hostilities and most left for the continent. Further weakening the Irish position, as the only ones willing to fight left....

Something for me to look up when I have more time.. Cheers

[Bavarian Raven]

You can paint it whatever way you like, they failed to displace the British for over three centuries

But they were at least brave enough to fight for their family and homes and lives.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Bavarian Raven

[Arbenol]

I think it is a failing of our penal system. Instead of rehabilitating criminals into useful members of society. They just house them and allow them to network together and train each other. So when a "professional", or "career" criminal gets out of jail he goes back to what he knows. It is an often talked about problem, but nothing is ever done about it.

Thus the average gun owner probably suspects that the criminal will likely continue to be a criminal, and if he is dead, it is not a monumental loss to society. And pretty much everyone agrees with this other then those who perceive doing anything to a criminal is Unjust, or Racist, or Unfair... usually in naivety based on skin color or economic back ground.

Also many believe that killing a criminal is some kind of deterent. But, it seems by crime rates that criminals don't watch the News to be detered, and don't read the News either. Or, perhaps just believe that they are "Too Smart" to get shot.

There is also some truth to the idea that if caught a criminal will return at some point for vengence. This is a true worry, as sometimes the criminal only does a year or so, and then there is nothing to stop them from some kind of vengence. Many criminals are denied Parol for this very reason, they are still deemed a risk to the community/society/individual victim.

That's an interesting perspective on things. That people might believe they're doing a public service by killing criminals - thus preventing them from harming others in the future. I can't really fault the logic of that.

It makes a lie of all those who claim they're just want to defend their families.

I don't really have an opinion on the gun debate. If I lived in America I would probably want to be able to defend myself, considering how prevalent firearms are in that society. But there's a huge difference between that and acting like a vigilante. I've always believed that the measure of a civilised society is how it treats those that offend against it. The lack of value put on another human life is saddening. The attitude that it's desirable to kill a burglar does not reflect well on those that promote it. Yet they would probably consider themselves better than the person they wish dead.

[Guest]

But they were at least brave enough to fight for their family and homes and lives.

The brave hero's.

You fill your heads with such legends but meanwhile your country goes down the pan and you wait for your brave hero moment.

History ain't like that.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Some history ain't like that but some history is. Why does that make you so mad?

[Guest]

Some history ain't like that but some history is. Why does that make you so mad?

Mad because it seems most of you would rather see it get to that stage before you will lift a finger to do anything about it, and thats when you will reach for your guns.

Its just stupid.

Br Cornelius

[SHaYap]

Mad because it seems most of you would rather see it get to that stage before you will lift a finger to do anything about it, and thats when you will reach for your guns.

Its just stupid.

Br Cornelius

~ sometimes there isn't much else one can expect ... Comrade Cornelius

`

[Beckys_Mom]

Some people would say acting like a vigilante is wrong, but if anyone dared to hurt and aim to kill my kids, I will take the law into my own hands and I will hunt them down and gladly die trying...I have acted to defend before, I know I would do it again and again if I had to... I would die for my kids, and I couldn't give a damn who thought little of me.. It is my job to protect them at any cost...

Edited June 23, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[+DieChecker]

It makes a lie of all those who claim they're just want to defend their families.

Well there the belief by some that the criminal would return for vegence. Especially if you live in an area that is infested with Gangs. Then threre is some chance of you finding another gang member at your door. Perhaps making sure to kill the assailant is a form of self/family preservation based on fear of the future? Hoping to scare others into not coming into your house again.

Plus, now that I think of it, I've heard that many self defense courses that include guns tell the person being trained to aim for center of mass and empty the magazine. Most casual gun owners are not going to try to shoot Mr Homeinvader in the leg or shoulder. And they are not trained to shoot just once.

That technique right there is going to be more deadly then a gun needs to be.

Edited June 23, 2013 by DieChecker

[FLOMBIE]

It doesn't matter if you aim for the shoulder or leg; a shot wound can always be deadly, especially if it hits critical arteries. People can also survive being shot in the head, but someone who fires a gun without the intent to kill has not understood the ultimate force of gun use.

[F3SS]

Mad because it seems most of you would rather see it get to that stage before you will lift a finger to do anything about it, and thats when you will reach for your guns.

Its just stupid.

Br Cornelius

Who wants to have a gun fight? It's all in your head. Most of US don't want to reach that stage. Some do but most don't. Quit being so dramatic and extreme. Your perception is ill conceived.