1. Losing my religion

Comment #236856 by Cormac on August 25, 2008 at 1:17 pm

[quote]
I didn't tell you the end of the story. After they find God guilty, one of the rabbis says: "So what do we do now?" The reply is: "Let us pray." Is this a wry story about Jewish stoicism? Is it about a failure of moral courage? Or what?[/quote]

Well, what else would you do when you've found your god guilty of the most heinous crime? If he's cruel enough to do that, then what will he do if you don't pray to him?

(Can someone help me with the quote function?)

2. Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights

Comment #224385 by Cormac on August 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm

This whole policy seems to fly in the face of traditional conservative values of small government and smaller bureaucracies. Such an approach can only inflate both.

3. The moment of truth

Comment #224384 by Cormac on August 4, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Just to correct the writer on a point. It wasn't "hard" for catholic's in Ireland in those times to hold land. It was ILLEGAL for them to hold land, or to own a horse, or to hold weaponry, or to wear traditional dress. The whole point was to dispossess and suppress the native population and earlier English colonists, and replace them with an imported population.

Just a point of information.

4. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #65719 by Cormac on August 26, 2007 at 2:19 am

My experience in studying for an English Degree in University College Dublin was destroyed by this pseudo-philosophical political rubbish. Thank goodness Professor J.C.C. Mays arrived in my third year, put the brakes on, and reintroduced actual literature. If not for him, my entire experience would have been ruined.

In relation to postmodernism and its proponents, it strikes me that their objective - the explosion of the myth of foregoing ideologies and religions (etc) - has been much better served by science and atheism than anything they've "achieved".

Perhaps one reason that it is such a confusing mass of nonsense is that they're trying to render a whole load of nonsense equivalent in validity and truth. This is obviously futile and silly. In a sense then, what they're doing is spending a lot of time comparing irrational beliefs. Of course, the fact that they're speaking from an irrational standpoint doesn't seem to matter very much.

The fact that foregoing beliefs and ideologies can be demonstrated to be flawed, doesn't mean that a valid and logical one can't be articulated in the future.

It seems to me that they take what is really a very simple concept, (and one that existed prior to their getting their grubby hands on it), and inflating it beyond reason through a mix of overweening and aggressive ego and dishonesty.

A basic understanding and knowledge of politics and ethics, combined with a rounded knowledge of history provides far more than any amount of study of postmodernism.

(The name is pretty stupid too. Modern must mean that which is of the moment. Post-modernism places the topic into the future. Perhaps this is the first example of human time travel. Maybe this explains the confusion in their writing - it could be that their brains are temporally scrambled. That in fact they have something simple and clear to say, but by the time it flows from the brain through the fingers onto the screen, it has converted to inscrutable gibberish).

5. Nothing sacred: Journalist and provocateur Christopher Hitchens picks a fight with God

Comment #41544 by Cormac on May 16, 2007 at 9:30 am

Comment 40901 Mango:

Well I never capitalise the G in god, and this is deliberately because I want to point out the sneaky prejudiced respect that society gives to god and to theists. Equally, I don't capitalise the names of religions or prophets, or the rest.

The eye does jolt when the capital letter is missing, and it is actually quite effective as a technique. At least, it gives me a little feeling of liberation every time I do it.

6. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41539 by Cormac on May 16, 2007 at 9:08 am

WeeFlea, you appear to espouse the "post-modernist" approach to life - that everything is equivalent and of equal value. That it all just depends on your experience and cultural background. Perhaps this is why you are upset that scientists insist on one definition per object, as opposed to the multiple definitions you'd prefer.

Are you saying then that there are multiple definitions of God that are equally true?

Being allowed to write in The Times by way of promoting your particular religion is one thing, but being allowed to defend your position is another. Still another, and completely different category, is the ubiquitous "respect" given to religions throughout the media. Again, this comes from the relativism of modernism and post-modernism. Interestingly, the modernist and post-modernist positions have been aggressively attacked by pope Benny since his ascent to office.

Even if it were true that evangelists are blocked from publishing, which I doubt, it doesn't stop them from using their own MASSIVE resources to push their agenda. They do this through TV and radio stations, in addition to large scale events. I think you are paranoid on this issue.

Richard has debated with many different fundamentalists/evangelists. Why do you think you'd be any different.

Incidentally, I can categorically state that there are NOT one billion catholics in the world. As someone brought up a catholic, I can guarantee you if the church held an inquisition today, there'd be wholesale excommunication. Both this pope and the last one have declared ex-cathedra that a person who does not accept every last bit of dogma of the church is not a catholic, and has self-excommunicated themselves from the church. So this means that anyone who disagrees with the church's stance on women priests or condoms or the pill stands excommunicated. I would venture to suggest that you'd find it hard to locate a catholic even in Ireland if you were to apply this article of faith to Irish so-called catholics.

Furthermore, such figures include children born to catholic parents. It is deceitful to pretend that such people are catholic. This last point applies equally to all other religions. All the figures you suggest are false. In any case, the point still stands, because the religious leaders that are having the biggest effect in the world today are the loonies that Richard mentions. For example, they elected George Bush twice. (Well, he stole it once, and was then elected).


In relation to the existence of god, it is important to note that when we postulate his non existence, we can provide plenty of evidence for why his existence is unlikely and no evidence that can stand analysis for why the postulation might be false. The problem is that theists, when the postulate the existence of god have no evidence whatsoever to support the postulation, and also provide no evidence to disprove their postulation.

A rational person therefore will proceed with the working hypothesis that there is no god.

7. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41528 by Cormac on May 16, 2007 at 8:38 am

Hi Richard,

This article brought to mind an exasperated but witty comment of a colleague of mine from my days as a management consultant. In particular this line :

You can't criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.

The project we were on was to deal with serious cost problems on a production line. When we analysed the process, we saw that there had been many ad-hoc adjustments to the process to deal with non-standard issues. This led to all sorts of additional costs, particularly in time lost.

After one week of analysis, we knew what we needed. We drew up the plan for the new process to replace the flawed process. This would have reduced the costs by over 50%, with the added bonus of saving jobs. When we proposed the change, and tried to move the stakeholders into a creative and motivated frame of mind, we failed. We failed because they weren't convinced that we had analysed the existing process enough.

My colleague said "How much longer do we have to flog this dead horse before they'll accept it is dead".

It seems to me that this is particularly apt for application to the assertion that you can't criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology. Theology is a wasted effort, because it is fundamentally false. Reading every single theological book ever written will not change this fact one iota. Why continue to flog the dead horse by reading the works of theologists?

Regards,

Cormac.

8. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #37063 by Cormac on May 3, 2007 at 10:10 am

Comment #35727 by BaronOchs on April 28, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Interestingly the catholic faith has wained slower in Poland and Ireland than in other countries, which may be because they both had non-catholic oppressors which made the faith a source of solidarity.

While it would seem this is true of Poland, it isn't really true of Ireland. Most people on this island would still describe themselves as catholic. However, when you question them about their actual beliefs, you'll find that they very quickly render themselves candidates for excommunication. Very few Irish people actually subscribe to or even know what the dogmas of the catholic church are. The reason the church has survived is the fact that they have a monopoly over the rites of passage - birth (christening) coming of age (communion, confirmation), procreation (marriage and christening), death (funerals). These are core elements of our culture, and so it will be very difficult to lever the church out of them. Aside from these, actual belief in things like "limbo" (recently abandoned by the church anyway), "hell", "the devil", "angels", "mortal sins", "venial sins", "purgatory" and the like just doesn't exist. In reality, the kind of catholicism Ireland is famed for only really existed for about 60 years, if that. And even then it was completely hypocritical. Read James Joyce's "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man". Note the scene when he leaves the Sodality (religious movement) and goes straight to the prostitute. (At the time, Dublin had more prostitutes than any other city in the British Empire).

9. A deadly certitude

Comment #35077 by Cormac on April 26, 2007 at 6:22 am

Not to be pedantic or anything, but you should note that the word "Great" in this context refers to size, capacity, and ability rather than worthiness.

The "proof" is still bollox though.

10. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #34722 by Cormac on April 25, 2007 at 2:05 am

MouthAlmighty.

I laughed at your post. It is exactly that kind of rubbish that my lecturers in English used to go on with in the early 90s.

Unmitigated twaddle. Can you believe that they thought that their silliness could actually have a practical effect in mechanics let alone science?

To paraphrase what has been quoted on this thread already - They trust planes, cars, and trains don't they? (or probably bicycles in this specific case). See how well their plane lands without the mastery of fluid mechanics that exists in hydraulic suspension. See how well it flies without the pressured injection of fuel into the jet engine.

I'd love to see a post-modernist jet, car, dishwasher, lawnmower, telephone or any other modern appliance. Can you imagine the postmodernist life? You'd be in a state of constant and debilitating anxiety about whether or not your phone will connect you to another person for a conversation, or turn into a ham sandwich. After all, it is simply a matter of perspective, of whichever paradigm from which you are operating. Life would be one long episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus!

An existentialist post-modernist would be even funnier.

Incidentally, if you could get a post-modernist to use the phrase "kitchen appliance" you could trap them in a logical inconsistency simply by asking "appliance of what". The only answer is of course "Science", which they'd then have to recognise as having a fundamental reliability independent of the "world-view" of any human.

11. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #34720 by Cormac on April 25, 2007 at 1:58 am

Corylus,

An earlier post of mine seems to have been lost. Anyway, it was a post embarrassing in its enthusiasm for your posts on this thread.

I think you should write a book on the topic, as you are clearly very well read, have a clear manner that cuts through the bull, and a refreshing style of writing.

I for one would buy your book.

Cormac.

12. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #34715 by Cormac on April 25, 2007 at 1:49 am

taliesin,

I love it. This kind of drivel ruined my time studying English at University. I loved English in second level education, and continue to read voraciously.

That essay from the Postmodernism Generator may be complete drivel, but it reads exactly like the sh*te that was admired by the loonies who ran the English department in UCD (University College Dublin) prior to Prof Mays.

When I got to university, it was all this political pseudo-knowledge rubbish. Not an original thought or vision of beauty amongst the whole lot of them. Every essay was along the lines of "Critically analyse the two girls on the beach chapter in Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist from a radical lesbian feminist perspective", or "Deconstruct Shelley's Frankenstein with reference to the theories of Derrida, De Beauvoir, Cixous, and Kristeva". Many of our lecturers exhorted the women in my class (and there were about 1400 in my class), to taste their own menstrual blood and taught that all men are rapists. (I'm not joking).

Completely irrelevant and totally incomprehensible. What does it add to society to rehash someone else's thoughts like so many sheep. It removes all ability to question, and with it the possibility of original thought. This means that UCD English was producing robots rather than thinkers in those days.

I lost all interest, and spent my time partying and training in martial arts instead!

The only saving grace was that Professor JCC Mays was appointed as head of the department in my final year. He immediately started making changes, to my delight.

In fact, the approach to English in UCD at the time would have been more suited to a module in a course on politics or philosophy, where the validity of the various agenda could be put to question. It was obviously much safer to push the agenda in an English course, where it was less likely to come up against trained critical thinkers.

Phew, I guess I needed a rant too!

13. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #34509 by Cormac on April 24, 2007 at 9:54 am

This would seem a reasonable observation by the Israeli Government. After all, they insist on having a two exits from their buses too. One for men, situated at the front of the bus, which conveniently operates as an entry too. There is a second exit down the back, for the women, which conveniently acts as an entry too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6584661.stm

I thought this kind of thing ended with Rosa Parks of Montgomery fame...

Honestly - modesty buses! Whatever next? Wigs instead of veils?

Last year my wife and I were in an airport in Naples waiting for our flight home. We were surrounded on almost all sides by a bunch of gay american tourists, who were on their way back from a cruise (no pun intended) in the Med. All were in great spirits, and having a great laugh. One seat up from me on my left was an orthodox jewish guy, in his mid-twenties. He was looking fairly uncomfortable with all the sinful sodomites. My wife came to sit down on the only seat available, the one between me and the orthodox guy. He almost puked. Now, my wife is a pretty woman, with a fit size 8 figure, blonde hair, green eyes, and was wearing summer clothes. Any normal guy would appreciate a girl like that sitting next to them. He actually physically turned his body 90 degrees away from her, and moved his bags around so they wouldn't touch her.

I've got to say that this was every bit as bad as the rubbish that many muslims spout about men and women. They're missing out on so much!

Why on earth someone deliberately limits their life in this way I can't imagine.

Naomi Regen is a modern Rosa Parks. Keep up the good work Rosa.

14. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34432 by Cormac on April 24, 2007 at 3:42 am

Does anyone know if this vid is available anywhere as an MP4 or WMV? I can't stand quicktime, and dislike Apple since Woz left for the first time.

In any case, I can't play quicktime on my non-ipod Media Player or on my PDA.

15. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #34428 by Cormac on April 24, 2007 at 3:23 am

Bonzai

It is no surprise that the 911 "terrorists" (I hate that term, it has become meaningless), were from middle class backgrounds. It is usually the middle class that engage in insurrection. The poor don't have the time, as they are too busy trying to survive. The middle class can share some of the pressure and pain of the poor, are more conscious of its origin, and are in a better position to do something to better their situation.

The problem is that for every person passionate enough to take action against oppression, there is always someone ready to use them as a weapon in their own plan. Hence suicide bombers, and the murder of innocent civilians, tactics which I totally and utterly deplore as vile, disgusting, and completely immoral.

Denoir has posted above about how desperation breeds a belief in religious superstition. When the unscrupulous bind the politics of insurrection, religion, and nationalism together, it produces as heady cocktail for the people.

The difference between the attitudes that you describe is that Arabs have suffered because of the presence of oil on their lands. Think back over the last 100 years and the fact that World War 1, World War 2, The various Israeli wars of adventure, the First and Second Gulf Wars were all fought on Arab lands. Arabs are still not independent, and suffer under regimes set up by Western powers.

Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced by your descriptions of an African temperament. I've met plenty of Africans who are justifiably angry about what has been done to their continent and to their individual countries.

Finally, there's a fair amount of pot and kettle in what you say. Is it alright for us to feel, act, and state that we are entitled to rule over others? This is what is done when we support aggression such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. "The West" has a long history of subjugating nations, particularly over the last 50 years: Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, El Salvador, Haiti, and most revealingly of all the Chagos Islands (also known as the US Military base - Diego Garcia).

Coming from Ireland, I know what it is like to grow up in a recently liberated country. Political relations with our neighbour are only now beginning to normalise, almost 90 years after independence. The people you speak of have no democratic freedom, and they know that their governments are both corrupt and subject to foreign pressure, if they're not actually in the pay of a foreign power. (Saddam was a CIA creature until he invaded Kuwait; Noriega was a CIA creature, until the US tired of him etc. etc.). Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of Pinochet, the murderous Chilean dictator (who incidentally was another CIA stooge).

The sad thing is that the Imams and others have twisted the drive for independence and freedom to their own sick superstitious ends. The current Iranian president worries me, not because he wants to develop nukes (although those are disgustingly immoral) but because he is a far out fundamentalist, even compared to Khomeini. He's almost as much of a fundie as GW Bush! ;)

I reckon the the ANC, which was a secular liberation organisation (with a communist leaning), and similar organisations throughout Africa have saved most of that continent from the religious lunacy under which the arabs suffer. Africans can see another way to freedom and independence. That said, it is important to note that there is a great deal of support in Africa for the likes of Mugabe who is a racist and who has murdered countless thousands of his own people.

Finally, want to ask the Somalians how they feel about the West? What about the Rwandans?

I'm sick of all this anti-arab rhetoric. Your description of Islam as an arab religion ignores the asian and african islamic world. Your entire post comes across as racist and demonising of vast swathes of the world's population.

In any case, what is so much better about the current US led hegemony over the middle east?

16. Irish poll shows parents no longer want to force religion on to children

Comment #34139 by Cormac on April 23, 2007 at 10:27 am

Hi All,

One thing that always strikes me people assume that the pope has absolute control over all "catholics" worldwide.

I'm an atheist, and I've grown up in Ireland. Ireland has this reputation as being a benighted Catholic wasteland.

First of all, even during the darkest period of catholicism in Ireland, (30's to the 60's) most catholics wouldn't really have understood the full extent of their obligations as catholics. the mass and most church sacraments were "celebrated" in latin. Most people woulnd't have had a notion what they were chanting. The current pope and the last pope both stated that if a person doesn't submit to 100% of the dogma of the church, then they are not catholic. Therefore, most Irish "catholics" were not catholic.

Secondly, the really fundamental catholicism arrived in Ireland after the repeal of the ban on catholicism in the mid 1800's after Daniel O'Connell's campaigns. What the people didn't know was that the church and the British government had cooked up an agreement whereby in contrast to the previous Irish liberal flavour of catholicism, a new, roman, repressive form of catholicism would be implemented. Furthermore, the church committed to supporting the British state in Ireland. This can be clearly seen in the church policy of excommunicating rebels regularly and often.

Most people don't know that Dublin had more prostitutes per capita in James Joyce's time (early 1900's) than any other city in the British Empire. This reduced somewhat with the disappearance of the British military, but has continued right up to today. If you're not at work do a search on this venerable industry, and you'll see it is still alive and kicking. Read Joyce's "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man". It has very interesting depictions of him going from a sodality (lunatic Christian self-hatred reinforcement "voluntary" group) to a prostitute with a minimum of conflict in his head.

Rebel Irish consistently rejected the church. The reason for the rise of the church would seem to be largely due to the civil war in the 20's. The two sides weren't all that different in policies and beliefs, and so the church held somewhat of a casting vote. The church then extended its control over time until the people forced it back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

I have mostly been an atheist since I was a child, although I didn't really know it. I remember standing in my first communion thinking it was all a load of codswallop. At my confirmation I thought it was a disgusting way to take advantage of children. I went through a period when I was terrified that I might get the "call" and become a priest.

You'll mostly meet people here who "believe in something", who might describe themselves as Catholic, while still rejecting many key articles of dogma. Contraception, divorce, confession, mortal sins, hell, purgatory, the devil, and many other articles of catholic dogma would be readily laughed at by many supposed "Catholics".

Wakes are a tradition that go back into the mists of history. I've never been to the kind of wake described above, where people compare cars etc. My granny's wake went on for four days. Long poetic eulogies were written and recited in her honour. Wakes are a brilliant social ritual that have no dependence whatsoever on religion. In fact the church hated them, as the priest had no role at a wake, and they were considered a pagan activity. Wakes allow family and friends to put time aside to honour and to remember the life and times shared with the dead person. It is an effective help to the bereaved.

In relation to religion in Ireland, the biggest problem is the fact that religion is embedded in schools. The sooner we completely secularise education the better. I'll post more on this soon.

17. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #34127 by Cormac on April 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

Tony B,

Your logic in relation to Muslims and their qualified responses to 9/11 does not stand up.

How do you justify the bombing of innocent civilians in the "Shock and Awe" campaign that opened the current Iraq war? Surely you are aware that there is no such thing as a precision weapon, even one that is on target. A 1000lb bomb causes the same amount of indiscriminate destruction no matter where it hits. How do you justify the death of an Iraqi child from, for example, a chunk of concrete shrapnel from an on-target "precision" missile?

The answer is that neither is really justifiable. The fact is that the Iraqi people like most people in the so-called "developing nations" have been under the jackboot of some foreign power for well over 100 years. This is all the more so for those countries accursed by the presence of vast quantities of oil.

If you want a history lesson, the first world war kicked off largely because Germany had completed a railway line from Berlin to Baghdad. This line threatened to cut off British control of the Suez canal and therefore British access to their Empire in the Far East. It also threatened British control of the nascent and strategic oil reserves. The rest of the lead up to World War 1 was only so much staging. Franz Ferdinand was only part of the story. Ever since then, the Iraqi people and their neighbours have suffered from the curse of oil.

I am not defending the attacks of 9/11. I think they were disgusting. Even though I'm from Ireland, I know one person who was killed in the Towers, and I know several others who just managed to escape. That said, the attack was inevitable. I know from my own history that it is impossible to restrict the economic and democratic progress of a people without eventually suffering a violent response. Without the possibility of a democratic solution in which the people can find their own future, violence is inevitable.

In Ireland, despite the evidence of their eyes, ears, and familial history, most Irish people fell for the lie that was the Catholic church in Ireland on Independence. They were fed a lie by the church that true Irishness lay in fidelity to the church. This led to 70 years of pious corruption and decay in our country. Downtrodden people are taken advantage of by religious nuts, and the people confuse liberation politics with religion. This is what is currently going on right through the developing world.

Incidentally, Israel began to get the support of Western governments around the same time that western governments realised the importance of oil. This realisation led to the Balfour Declaration which in turn ultimately led to the foundation of the Israeli State, which is not a true democracy, but is actually a theocratic oligarchy. Democratic rights are given to a specific section of the population, while one part of the population are singled out, disenfranchised, and literally walled in.

I am not anti-jewish. What I've said has been said by many jewish people before me. Read Noam Chomsky as one example. I'm not a chomsky-ite though - I am not a socialist.

I am an ardent democrat, and a rational, clear-thinking atheist. No democratic state can be founded on a religious basis. All such states will fall eventually, like the Northern Irish "Protestant State for a Protestant People", the southern Irish "Catholic State for a Catholic People", the Apartheid State, and all others to date.

This is why the US constitution separates church from state. Those men had come through violent and troubled times, and knew the value of true democracy. It is unfortunate that so many US Citizens don't know the truth of their country's origins.

We cannot point the finger at Muslims, when our own culture is rife with fundamentalist lunatics. Furthermore, muslim countries are usually oppressive, corrupt, and deny human and civil rights. Most of those governments depend on the US and the West for their survival, either through direct support, or like the current Iranian regime, through opposition. By this I mean, Saddam Hussein depended on the US for his survival, from the time when he took power in his CIA backed coup until he stepped over the line by invading Kuwait. (The US and other Western Countries repeated this pattern of intervention many times over throughout the middle east, africa, asia, and south america).

The regimes in North Korea and Iran exagerate the threat of the US and the West to frighten the people into accepting their despotic regimes.

Did you know that Ho Chi Minh was a US ally in World War 2, because the US promised that they would support Vietnamese independence from the French after the war. Naturally, the US reneged on this commitment. Ho Chi Minh then allied himself with Communist China and USSR to fight France and subsequently the US.

Idi Amin was trained as an army officer at Sandhurst, the British equivalent of Westpoint. Robert Mugabe was educated in Britain. His daughter is in the London School of Economics right now. Mugabe still enjoys an honorary degree from Edinburgh University for services to africa! (Apparently they are keeping the degree under review, instead of immediately stripping that lunatic mass-murderer of the honour).

The Shah of Iran was put into power by a CIA coup. The British and French engineered a war at the Suez canal between Israel and Egypt in which when they were sent in as peacekeepers they engaged immediately in full military activity against Egypt in support of Israel so that they could steal a huge amount of Egypts land. (Again to protect their hegemony over the canal).

It is stupid in the extreme to consider current events in isolation of historical context. It is impossible to find solutions without better understanding.

Actions such as 9/11 are not justifiable, but they can be seen as the logical result of an ongoing political and economic policy.

18. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #34115 by Cormac on April 23, 2007 at 9:27 am

Just a couple of points guys, now that I've finally got my machine to recognise that I'm logged in!

It would be hard to find a person in Ireland who doesn't have an antecedent who was the victim of a state-sponsored or dissident gun-crime. From my family, the Black-and-tans came to assasinate my grandfather one day, and one of them shoved his rifle muzzle into my great-grandmother's mouth as she lay in her deathbed in an attempt to force my grandfathers location from her. These same Black-and-Tans, for fun, shot a young mother as she breast fed her child on her doorstep. WB Yeats wrote about that shooting. There are lots of other horrific tales on all sides of the many conflicts in Ireland.

In Ireland, our Gardai Siochana (guardians of the peace - our police force) are unarmed. When we achieved our independence from Britain, by force of arms, our country was awash with firearms. After independence, we engaged in a brutal and fratricidal civil war. Once the dust had settled, our founding fathers very wisely set about removing the gun from daily life in Ireland. They severely restricted gun ownership, and as an act of faith in the people, disarmed the police. People can own shotguns in restricted circumstances, and sometimes a low powered rifle (.22).

Last year an Olympic shooter made a case to be allowed to have a higher powered rifle so he could train in Ireland instead of overseas, and permission was refused. This shows that we still take gun restriction very seriously, even now that the Northern situation is close to a peaceful resolution.

Today, you will not see armed police on the streets in Ireland (Ireland is the constitutional name for the Republic of Ireland, and does not include Northern Ireland for the purposes of this discussion).

There are of course some police units that are armed. These deal with specific situations, such as the various dissident groups and organised criminals. Despite media reports, Ireland is very peaceful. Even at the heights of the "troubles" the republic was very peaceful and quiet. Most people will never have seen a gun in real life, let alone fired one.

There has been a recent rise in gun-related activity amongst the criminal underworld, where it never really existed before. It would seem that this has to do with the fact that the IRA have "retired" their "volunteers", some of whom have branched out into other ventures.

In general however, we don't have gun crime. It is almost unheard of for someone unrelated to drugs to be shot. (Shooting rivals is the current fashion amongst drug-dealers it would seem).

I found it most interesting that the gunshop owner who sold the VT murderer one of his guns said that prior to that lunatic, guns he had sold had only ever been involved in 6 deaths that he knew of - 4 murders and 2 suicides. Note, no deaths occurred in a self-defence situation.

It is all very well to declare that people have the right to self-defence. This is obvious. However, firearms are too dangerous to be distributed liberally in society. It (generally) is true to say that guns don't kill people. But when a person has access to a gun at a moment of emotional crisis the risk is far higher that they'll shoot first and regret later. Furthermore, there is much greater risk of accidental shooting where a child plays with the gun, and this has happened many times. Finally, when guns are in the home, kids will, if they want to, get access to the gun or guns, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The reality is that reducing the availability of guns will reduce the number of shootings. It is a simple mathematical truth. This doesn't mean that it would eradicate shootings completely, because one can't uninvent an invention. Nonetheless, shootings would reduce.

Without guns, it is more likely that people will have a chance to cool down and work out differences rationally and more effectively.

Incidentally, in relation to protecting my family, I'd much prefer to tear someone apart with my bare hands if they threatened my family, than to shoot them. I'm no milksop, if I find a burglar in my house, I don't plan on backing off or giving him (or her) a chance to get away scot free. But I still don't believe in the free availability of firearms.

By the way, I would remind all of us Europeans that there have been attempts at school massacres in Europe too. Remember Dunblane? I believe it was after Dunblane that the British Government brought in laws severely restricting the ownership of pistols.

There have been other such attempts too. Wasn't there one in Germany recently? Can anyone list such attempts in Europe?

One final point. Gun laws are very diverse in Europe. There are some countries where one can buy arms pretty easily. In France and Spain I've seen lots of rifles and pistols for sale.