What happens to a dis-armed populace.

"Michael Wolf" <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message
news:436f3dd2$0$1204$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
> > "Michael Wolf" <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message

> >>Against youths who would certainly be armed themselves then too?
> >
> >
> > Sure.
> > Crooks like preying on folks who can't/won't fight back.
>
> So, you want gunfights on busses?

Absolutely.

But if the populace is armed, there wouldn't have been one...

Lee Bell a écrit :

> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>
> > So what does Muslim have to do with it? Thankfully the Muslims aren't
> > armed, is that your point?
>
> You think maybe gas and a match don't qualify as armed to the lady they
> burned to death? You think she's thankful they burned her instead of, say,
> shooting her? Do you suppose that, if she were given the choice, she would
> chose burning to death over the risk of an armed citizen present and willing
> to protect her?

Of course in that particular instances one could only wish that there
had been an "armed citizen present and willing to protect her".

But if you look at the whole situation, if guns were widespread in
France then it's likely that they would also be in the hands of these
hooligans, and that they would actually use them (it's already bad
enough that some policemen have been shot at with shotguns).

In the US you do have widespread gun ownership. I think you do have
experienced violent riots as well. I'm not saying that the situation is
better/worse in either country (probably worse here for the time being,
actually) but simply that more guns are probably not the solution to
the situation, if there is one...

Cheers,

Froggy

"Michael Wolf" wrote

>>>Against youths who would certainly be armed themselves then too?

>> They were already armed.

> Ah, so you advice that all French citizens carry molotov cocktails?

No, we want all French citizens who have the willingness to defend
themselves and others, to have the right to the tools required to do so.
Since only the brave French will be carrying, I don't expect a significant
number.

Lee

"Froggy" wrote

>> You think maybe gas and a match don't qualify as armed to the lady they
>> burned to death? You think she's thankful they burned her instead of,
>> say,
>> shooting her? Do you suppose that, if she were given the choice, she
>> would
>> chose burning to death over the risk of an armed citizen present and
>> willing
>> to protect her?

>Of course in that particular instances one could only wish that there
>had been an "armed citizen present and willing to protect her".

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

>But if you look at the whole situation, if guns were widespread in
>France then it's likely that they would also be in the hands of these
>hooligans, and that they would actually use them (it's already bad
>enough that some policemen have been shot at with shotguns).

A fair chance at self defense is all anyone can count on. This lady didn't
have that.
A fair chance at self defense might have led the criminals to rethink their
plans, preferring a live and let live policy to one that would, otherwise,
be likely to end with their own deaths.

If guns had not been available, illegally, by the way, during World War II,
France would not have had a resistance.
We tend to think of the resistance as a positive thing.

>In the US you do have widespread gun ownership. I think you do have
>experienced violent riots as well. I'm not saying that the situation is
>better/worse in either country (probably worse here for the time being,
>actually) but simply that more guns are probably not the solution to
>the situation, if there is one...

I didn't suggest that more guns is the answer to anything. What I's saying
is that the right to the tools of self defense is important to those who do
not like to have to make a choice between complete surrender to the will of
others and death by burning. Everything in life is a trade off. If it had
been your wife and you had been there, which would you chose:
1. Take out a gun in hope of preventing further violence or, failing that,
to ensure that the criminal, rather than your wife received the just results
of his crime, or
2. Watch her burn to death?

Lee

Froggy wrote:

> Lee Bell a écrit :
>

>
> In the US you do have widespread gun ownership. I think you do have
> experienced violent riots as well.

Most riots do not used widespread use of guns it is firebombing , mobs
and looting. It is too bad that the rightful owners of the shops can
not defend their property to the low life animals who choose to destroy
the very people they help out each and every day. If I was in an area
that was being looted, I would not stand by and watch my business be
ruined. Don't you find the paradox that the area with the most stringent
gun control laws suffer from the most widespread violence?


> Froggy
>

"Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131366939.152298.94320@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Lee Bell a écrit :

> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>
> > So what does Muslim have to do with it? Thankfully the Muslims aren't
> > armed, is that your point?
>
> You think maybe gas and a match don't qualify as armed to the lady they
> burned to death? You think she's thankful they burned her instead of,
say,
> shooting her? Do you suppose that, if she were given the choice, she
would
> chose burning to death over the risk of an armed citizen present and
willing
> to protect her?

Of course in that particular instances one could only wish that there
had been an "armed citizen present and willing to protect her".

But if you look at the whole situation, if guns were widespread in
France then it's likely that they would also be in the hands of these
hooligans, and that they would actually use them (it's already bad
enough that some policemen have been shot at with shotguns).

Maybe, but you'd never have this 9-10 days of widespread rioting crap, or
bands of youths holding busses at bay and torching cripples.

In the US you do have widespread gun ownership. I think you do have
experienced violent riots as well.

Yah, but they are short and contained.

The Rodney King L.A. riots went on for a couple days, until U.S. Marines
showed up and it got real quiet real quick.

I'm not saying that the situation is
better/worse in either country (probably worse here for the time being,
actually) but simply that more guns are probably not the solution to
the situation, if there is one...

One legally carried pistol with a modicum of training would have saved
that woman's life.

Cheers,

Froggy

Lee Bell a écrit :

> "Froggy" wrote

<snip>

> If guns had not been available, illegally, by the way, during World War II,
> France would not have had a resistance.
> We tend to think of the resistance as a positive thing.

So do we, so do we.

Now if weapons were not available, Iraq would not have an insurgency.
We tend to think of the insurgency as a ... ?

But of course either examples are completely irrelevant to the
discussion we are having

> >In the US you do have widespread gun ownership. I think you do have
> >experienced violent riots as well. I'm not saying that the situation is
> >better/worse in either country (probably worse here for the time being,
> >actually) but simply that more guns are probably not the solution to
> >the situation, if there is one...
>
> I didn't suggest that more guns is the answer to anything.

Well, at least the tittle of the thread and Popeye's post suggest
something along this line, and you did not take objection to it.

> What I's saying
> is that the right to the tools of self defense is important to those who do
> not like to have to make a choice between complete surrender to the will of
> others and death by burning. Everything in life is a trade off.

FYI, guns are far from being outlawed in France. There are about 18-25
million guns in circulation (for a population of about 60 million, the
highest ratio in Europe after Finland), and France is by far the
European country with the highest number of handguns (the ratio between
handguns to rifles being exceptionally high for Europe, being similar
to that of the US).

With wider gun ownership/usage the trade off might be increased means
of protection against an increased danger, the net result being a
higher net risk. Or maybe a lower net risk. Since there is no way of
knowing, it seems to me that it is very difficult to use the current
events as a decisive argument for/against wider gun owership.

> If it had been your wife ...

I think that this question was answered in my previous post.


Cheers,

Froggy

Joe English wrote:
> Michael Wolf wrote:
>
>> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> They were already armed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, so you advice that all French citizens carry molotov cocktails?
>>
>>
>
> No what was said but giant leap of logic. Popeye merely stated that
> they were already armed, and they were. Popeye didn't advise anything,
> simply stating the fact that they were armed

and with what?

--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

"Michael Wolf" <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message
news:436f6700$0$6882$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> Lee Bell wrote:
> > "Michael Wolf" wrote
> >
> >
> >>>>Against youths who would certainly be armed themselves then too?
> >
> >
> >>> They were already armed.
> >
> >
> >>Ah, so you advice that all French citizens carry molotov cocktails?
> >
> >
> > No, we want all French citizens who have the willingness to defend
> > themselves and others, to have the right to the tools required to do so.
>
> And at the same time the scum will be armed too...

Funny... based on what's going on over there right now, I'd say that the
scum are already armed. Perhaps not with firearms, but the scum are
definitely carrying "molotov cocktails."

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11muga46qvmkf77@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Michael Wolf" <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message
> news:436f3db1$0$1204$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> > Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
> > >>Against youths who would certainly be armed themselves then too?
> > >
> > >
> > > They were already armed.
> >
> > Ah, so you advice that all French citizens carry molotov cocktails?
>
> No, I merely observe that they already can...

Is it just me, or is this clown simple as a coffee can?