Gun control

[ehunter]

Obviously, individual accounts need to be looked at within their own historical perspectives, but whether you agree or not, these are interesting lessons in history, Something to think about, and I though you might enjoy...

------------------------------------------------

.. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

.. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

.. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

.. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

.. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

.. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

.. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

56 million.

------------------------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past
12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort!and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. And, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

This was sent to me as a e-mail

[Wreckless]

Thanks for the reminder...Sometimes we take our rights lightly, the reminder is appreciated.

The Australian stats aren't a surprise.

[Crooked Hook]

A good reminder ehunter.....but I think it's as they say, "preaching to the choir". Maybe those of us that read it should consider passing along the message to non ifish folks.

Note to self.....finish reading posts before posting your own.

[Fish Wheels]

While I am against Gun control on law abiding citizens, I don't think the historical notes are valid in relation to gun control. It's assuming that these "victims" would have possessed guns and were willing to use them, or would have been succesfful against an Army.

I do find the Australia stats interesting. As they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[RoscoeP]

Excellent post Lloyd! Please pass this on to everyone you know, who thinks we would be better off without guns....

[ehunter]

I saw this and was reading a book the other about some settlers in Texas they were being pushed out of Poland, they came to America and did not know how to use fire arms. They said that the common man could not have them in their country if they had they could have fought back.....I think the some is true in a number of these countries. It is not very hard to persucate someone if they cannot fight back.

[rimrock]

I certainly agree gun control is and hasn’t been our Nation’s challenge with regards to gun related crimes. The point it’s people who are committing the crimes and a gun all on its own has never committed a crime…ALL VERY TRUE!!!

To boil all this down to merely gun control is IMO at bit overstated. People including myself have a tendency to see what they want…the real root cause in these matters is much more complex than any single issue.

The potential for such extreme gun control measures in the United States is beyond remote with such powerful pro-gun lobbies, organizations and industry besides the ultimate hammer of guaranteed Constitutional protections.

So what’s the point: If you use this kind of argument to someone indifferent to gun control or the proverbial non-hunter they are also just as likely to think your nutty than making a logical case to them. Now is that what we want to do???

I could just see their reply now, “So the Holocaust happened because of gun-control???”


[No Flaming Required]

[ehunter]

Rimrock you make a good point and I am sure that these stats are a tinkered with a little bit. Still the basis for our Federal Goverment when it founded was to allow the average person to bear arms in protection of their country and home. We are still fighting for our right to bear arms.

This country is unique in that if we had to proctect our selfs we are pretty well armed :grin: at least most of the people on this board

[rimrock]

Despite the protections the fight still must be fought NO DOUBT ehunter! I know you still understood that from my post – compliancy would be a dangerous approach on our part.

As for being armed I’m pretty good there it’s just the shooting part I have a problem with. Shooting fish in a barrel isn’t so easy for some of us them suckers can really move.

[ehunter]

__________________________________________________ ________
As for being armed I’m pretty good there it’s just the shooting part I have a problem with. Shooting fish in a barrel isn’t so easy for some of us them suckers can really move.
__________________________________________________ __________
Yea it is especially with a bow.

Also agree with you about the shooting part we hopefully will never have to cross that bridge.

[Catching Nemo]

I support the RKBA but this, to me, is one of the weaker arguments for supporting it.

Does anyone really think that the above deaths would have been averted if those people were allowed to own revolvers, shotguns and rifles? Those figures represented what percentage of the overall population in those countries (10%, 5%, 1%)?

Hypothetically speaking, if the United States Military (active, reserve, and guard units) were used against a specific group of Americans (Muslim, Jew, Protestant, Native American, White, Black, left handed, etc.). Do you think they would have a snow ball's chance in stopping them with the array of currently legal arms for private citizens?

In all the above cases, the people who were killed were in a "minority" status and the popular will was against them. They had no outside support, unified command, supply or support structure.

My point being, that if they had been armed but still did not have the popular will, outside support, or a unified command - the end result would be the same.

Our own country's initial fight for representation and later independence, I believe, is a far better example. We had the popular will (for the most part), a unified command structure, supplies and also outside support from France. However, had the local citizens of Lexington and Concord not had arms, they coud not have stopped British troops from seizing the armory and thus maybe ending the revolution before it ever began.

However, I do believe the crime numbers are a good indicator (and argument for the RKBA) of what happens when you take away one's right to protect their own life, liberty and property.


John

[llama77]

I think the historical evidence is just as valid today as it was for the framers of the consitution. They looked at history and came to the conclusion that WE THE PEOPLE should be armed to protect ourselves from tyrany.
Maybe the chinese, Mayans , turks and some of the others would have rolled over without a fight.
But given the history of the Jewish people both before WW II and after, IM thinking maybe Hitler would have had another problem besides the Russians.
And personaly I think the evidence does indicate that gun control was a contributing factor to the holocaust.
I bet Hitler thought so too.
World politics would have been vastly different if the Jews in Europe had the opportunity to fight back. Would France, England, and the US have been better prepared for war?
We will never know. But it is just as likely as not that things would have been different.
The Japanese were asked why they didnt invade the US.
It was never part of their plan because the people were so well armed

And as obvious as the statistics are that E hunter provided, politicians still ignore similar statistics in our own country.

[Limbhanger]

Nemo,.......Left Handed???? Now that hurts

[Ni!]

Hypothetically speaking, if the United States Military (active, reserve, and guard units) were used against a specific group of Americans (Muslim, Jew, Protestant, Native American, White, Black, left handed, etc.). Do you think they would have a snow ball's chance in stopping them with the array of currently legal arms for private citizens?

No, but it would give them something extra to think about before making the decision to send in the troops. I believe the ***** passed on Switzerland during WWII in part because of the armed citizenry. Not that they couldn't have taken them, but the price would have been too high.

I do agree though, that the juxtaposition of the earlier genocides - even if a cause and effect could be established - with the situation in Australia is a little over the top. Nobody's gonna be rounding up Aussie citizens and stuffing them into the ovens once the guns are all gone.

Ni!

[crabbait]

Catching Nemo nailed it as far as I am concerned. Anybody who thinks that small arms are going to defend against a "modern" military needs to watcha little more Iraq footage.

I think if you run a "Snopes" on the original email you might find that interesting. I think this has been bouncing around the internet for several years now.

In order for the premise to be correct, no people would have been "exterminated" in the years preceding the institution of gun control. Gun Control in all of the cited cases was a symptom of a government gone awry but only one small symptom. There were many others.

[ehunter]

I wasn't saying that small arms are going to fight a war but it does make a difference to people that might attempt to do you harm if they know your armed. IE Criminals, thugs.ect..

[eightball]

Most crimnals are going to pass on a house where they think they are going to run into an armed home owner. There is nothing to stop them if they know you are unarmed.

[BrianMaguire]

Hypothetically speaking, if the United States Military (active, reserve, and guard units) were used against a specific group of Americans (Muslim, Jew, Protestant, Native American, White, Black, left handed, etc.). Do you think they would have a snow ball's chance in stopping them with the array of currently legal arms for private citizens?

Isn't this exactly what our current leaders thought about Iraq? Seems to me that they are wrong and therefore you must be as well. When an insurgent/minority are indistinguishable from civilians current tactics and methods for fighting uniformed armies are rendered quite quaint.

[Fish Wheels]

The weapons the insurgents are using are a little more than the average citizen in most countries can legally possess don't you think. Who here has a rocket propelled grenade launcher in the safe ? C3 ? old missile warheads ?

[waterfowlin101]

Who here has a rocket propelled grenade launcher in the safe ? C3 ? old missile warheads ?

I have none of the above, but you'd be surprised what's realy out there...I was.

Jon

[BrianMaguire]

The weapons the insurgents are using are a little more than the average citizen in most countries can legally possess don't you think. Who here has a rocket propelled grenade launcher in the safe ? C3 ? old missile warheads ?

There are a ton of our guys getting killed by sniper fire, not to mention small arms taking out helicopters and other aircraft, so I think that small arms are infact a really large impact in an insurgency. Who needs C3, just some fertilizer and diesel. You can also build a rocket at your local hobby shop, and for more powerful ones just read up on it it is not as hard as you think. Depends on how much of a McGyver you are. None of that stuff is hard to build.

[ehunter]

Yep Brian you are right.

[dla]

Hypothetically speaking, if the United States Military (active, reserve, and guard units) were used against a specific group of Americans (Muslim, Jew, Protestant, Native American, White, Black, left handed, etc.). Do you think they would have a snow ball's chance in stopping them with the array of currently legal arms for private citizens?

Short answer: absolutely!

A couple of points:[list=1][*] Our military will kill our own citizens. They're trained to obey orders. Don't fool yourself into thinking that your average grunt will do some heavy constitutional thinking.[*] Any armed resistance will cause round-up activities to grind to a halt. It's not a matter of the quality of small arms.[*] Notice how Law Enforcement types involved in the New Orleans force evacuations were seizing legally-owned small arms. My point is: don't expect the cops to obey the laws when push comes to shove.[list]

The cause and effect relationships presented in the original post are real, but they don't prove intent. Nobody in the government was planning genocide when they disarmed the citizenry. But the genocides did happen precisely because the people where unarmed.

I hate gun control. It always hurts the good guys.

[Rank Amateur]

"Our military will kill our own citizens. They're trained to obey orders. Don't fool yourself into thinking that your average grunt will do some heavy constitutional thinking."

I will bet you, there would be quite a few son's and daughter's turning their own weapons on the troops when it is their Dad and Mom in the line of fire. I can see it now, a few Apache's pulling out of formation and lighting up the world!

Yep, definately would be a nasty fight. What the heck, we are all going to go out some day, might as well be with my boots on and my rifle in my hands. Definately will not be a sheep. Just watched Schindlers list last night, you bet them Jews would have fought, look at them today!

[Steve L.]

I support the RKBA but this, to me, is one of the weaker arguments for supporting it.John

My family is much smaller now than it was before WWII. Weak arguement ? Maybe, but I'd rather die on my feet than live or die on my knees