The Historical Results of Gun Control

[AffectionateDan]

The Historical Results of Gun Control

Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. --------------------------------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, 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 Australia 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. --------------------------------------------------------

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late! --------------------------------------------------------

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. --------------------------------------------------------

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. --------------------------------------------------------

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."- Thomas Jefferson

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Even 200-plus years ago, they knew...

 

[Neutron]

Wrong!!!

I suggest you do some actual research into all those events. None of those countries had what would be considered Gun Control and regardless of whether the people were armed or not they would have died anyway.
NONE of those societies had any history of armed uprising or partisan activity. In fact that's one thing the Russians commented on during their march across Germany, the people simply weren't revolutionaries and were almost genetically programmed for wanting some sort of control.

NOTE after these periods, particularly Post WW2 (I'll use Russia as an example) where guns were freely available to the general population, there were no uprisings AND the purgese continued.

Nice try using a typical anti gun control tactic, using simple examples without really doing any research.

I'll give an example,,, In countries where cops aren't armed the murder rate and more importantly the violence against police rate is far lower.

(By the way on Guns I'm pro choice, I could care less)


Tron

 

[Phineas]

if anyone thinks Bubba-Joe-Bob and his huntin' buddies with their collection of .22s and what-not is gonna stand up to the National Guard, Marines, or what-not if they really feel like doing something to hurt the populace, I'd love to be there with a dust-buster to pick up what's left of them when they try.

Does anyone here *really* think the Second Amendment is going to protect them from the military if this country is, for some reason, say, put under martial law or anything like that? Do you *really* think that an armed revolution against our government has even a fart's chance in a hurricane of succeeding on a national scale?

Yea. okay. sure. again, love to see ya try. 😀

 

[Neutron]

if anyone thinks Bubba-Joe-Bob and his huntin' buddies with their collection of .22s and what-not is gonna stand up to the National Guard, Marines, or what-not if they really feel like doing something to hurt the populace, I'd love to be there with a dust-buster to pick up what's left of them when they try.

Does anyone here *really* think the Second Amendment is going to protect them from the military if this country is, for some reason, say, put under martial law or anything like that? Do you *really* think that an armed revolution against our government has even a fart's chance in a hurricane of succeeding on a national scale?

Yea. okay. sure. again, love to see ya try. 😀

Well said.

In Australia, even the Gun Control people attribute the rising rate to the influx of refugees from the terrorist attacks in the Solomons and rising terrorist activity.

I love how the NRA likes to think everyone is so ignorant as to not actually research the "facts" they put out.

Tron

 

[Haltickling]

Dan, your post mixes up cause and effect. All of those countries you listed (except Australia) were "governed" by dictators even before they banned guns, and there was nothing that the people could have done against it. The killings were a result of the criminal regimes, not a by-effect of gun-banning.

OTOH, guns are strictly controlled in almost all western civilizations and democracies. Civilized people feel no use to carry or possess firearms. Maybe you could name a few western civilizations outside USA without gun-control?

 

[Neutron]

Research Your History...

Back in the Colonial days and the early days of this country Jefferson et al were not advocating public possession of guns anymore than they advocated democratic voting, in fact if you read their papers and debates you'll see they did not trust the average citizen.

A militia was NOT a banding of people. It in fact was a government controlled military regiment. The only difference was the level of government. Militia were groups formed by towns and counties, ususually by the richest man. Freedom to form a militia and the Right to Bear arms were the means to allow the localities to form their own Armies until the Federal Government had the means to form their own.

Tron

 

[Deleted member 2452]

you can't handle the truth

once again you gun grabers try to denie the truth.
it must be terrible to be you people, to see us armed americans enjoying our freedom.
i am a gun owner, to date, here is the score; accidental shootings 0,
robberies stopped 2, burgleries stopped 2, stopping of felony assult on a neighbor 1. so all in all a gun in the hands of a trained citizen is a good thing!

steve

 

[Neutron]

I'm Not A Gun Grabber..

I own two assault rifles and due to my other job I'm more proficient with guns then you'll ever hope to be.

Affectionate Dan just posted information that had nothing to do with Gun Control. Over half those 10 million Soviets who were killed in the purges were armed forces personnel, or connected with the armed forces. Hardly unarmed people.
Of the rest over 75% were armed insurgents, either cossacks, Slovaks, Ukrainians , Turks or Central Asians. These had nothing to do with Gun Control Either,

Dans stats have more to do with Sociopath Dictators vice Gun Control.

What I posted is based on historical proof and fact.

What about you Steve?

Tron

 

[MrMacphisto]

hmmm...

Oddly enough, this is one of the few issues I'm conservative on... I think the status quo is doing a decent job at gun control right now. Rifles and shotguns are relatively easy to get, and handguns just require a simple permit that usually only felons can't get. Permits and the 5 day background check seem like reasonable limits on handgun access.

Another strange thing that a very liberal individual has shown us is that guns don't seem to have as much of a connection to violent crime as many would suggest. Michael Moore, in "Bowling for Columbine", showed us that Canada has more guns per capita than America. Granted, most of Canada's guns are rifles and shotguns, rather than handguns. Anyway, the facts seem to support this notion: easy access to guns isn't really the root of violent crime, but then again, guns don't make us any safer as a society either. It would seem that guns are neutral, and the culture of a society has to do more with the amount of violent crimes a country experiences.

I have to agree with Phineas that the idea that you can combat the military with a small militia is rather ludicrous. Unless you have fighter jets, combat helicopters, tanks, missiles, and various other things stacked away in your personal arsenal, the U.S. military (and any other respectable military in the world) would seriously blow the shit out of you if you were dumb enough to piss them off.

As a final note, the only part of the gun issue that needs more control are gun shows. Gun stores have to comply with various federal and state laws to manage their businesses, so they already have their fair share of regulation, but gun shows aren't as regulated. It would be relatively easy for a felon to get a gun at a gun show, and felons (and the mentally unstable) are really the only people you want to prevent from getting guns. The majority of the rest of us are responsible enough to have a gun.

 

[ceaser]

I own two assault rifles and due to my other job I'm more proficient with guns then you'll ever hope to be.

I love people who make such broad statements as these when they have no idea who they might be talking to. I am sure in your mind that you are the most proficient gun toter in the world but how do you know that for a fact? I see the smoke coming from your head thinking about this so I will help you before you overheat........YOU DON'T KNOW.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Re: I'm Not A Gun Grabber..

I own two assault rifles and due to my other job I'm more proficient with guns then you'll ever hope to be.

Affectionate Dan just posted information that had nothing to do with Gun Control. Over half those 10 million Soviets who were killed in the purges were armed forces personnel, or connected with the armed forces. Hardly unarmed people.
Of the rest over 75% were armed insurgents, either cossacks, Slovaks, Ukrainians , Turks or Central Asians. These had nothing to do with Gun Control Either,

Dans stats have more to do with Sociopath Dictators vice Gun Control.

What I posted is based on historical proof and fact.

What about you Steve?

Tron

yes i posted out of hitorical truth also tron.
the point of the piece that dan posted was that guns were confiscated, and baned prior to the dictators starting their bloody agendas. the agendas were there, but first the dictators had to insure the victims couldn't defend them selves. if the jews in germany had guns, and shot a couple stoom troopers for every family they fucked with, it would have ended very quickly. another approach would have been taken. in the ussr, during the military purges, the first thing that was done was to restrict the troops to their barracks and away from their weapons! duh! your stating that 75% of the non-military victims were armed insurgents id just plain horse shit.
tron, you don't know me. don't judge my marksmenship w/o knowing what your talking about, you have no idea how foolish you sound. i lmao when i read this post about how much better you are than me.
grow-up, this isn't a dick comparing contest.

steve

 

[Sadistictickler]

so ur saying that with a gun you're a match for a well-trained and organised army? Don't be so naive, as if shooting some stormtroopers would've helped the jews from being massacred in 2nd world war...

 

[Deleted member 2452]

so ur saying that with a gun you're a match for a well-trained and organised army? Don't be so naive, as if shooting some stormtroopers would've helped the jews from being massacred in 2nd world war...

ah the well known jew-baiter wades in. good, this board is for everyone, no matter how wronge they always are.
read my post again, you missed the important parts.

steve

 

[MrMacphisto]

Steve, I think we're on the same page on this issue. I'm all for the right to bear arms (as long as you're not a felon or mentally unstable). However, I do have to say that the decimation of the Jews in WWII would probably have happened regardless of whether or not they had guns. Granted, there probably would have been more Jews dying in their homes from firefights with the Nazies than ones dying in camps, if they had weapons. Also, it would have been a lot harder for the Nazies to kill armed Jews, but still, I think Hitler and his forces were both hateful enough and desperate enough to have still killed off the majority of the Jewish population in a good chunk of Europe. Simply put, the Jews were greatly outnumbered. I think the U.S. military, in particular, knows the importance of "overwhelming forces."

 

[General Zod]

I really don't believe the U.S. Military would ever turn on the American people and take away their firearms A lot of those men and women grew up in a home with firearms Just my personal opinion on that As far as the Jews arming themselves during W.W.2 In 1943? it took a good month for some S.S. units to clear out the Warsaw ghetto where the Jews were able to arm themselves Who knows,maybe if the Jews would have beeen armed things may have turned out differently
Allthough I'm sure a certain person on this site will tell me how wrong I am for stating the above😛

 

[Sadistictickler]

zod's pointing out the exact problem. the US will never be a dictatorship, so in the US self-defence won't be an issue. The thing that's an issue is for example Columbine. I'm living in a small country with strict guncontrol and people here don't get their heads blown off just because they were in the wrong neighbourhood.

 

[General Zod]

zod's pointing out the exact problem. the US will never be a dictatorship, so in the US self-defence won't be an issue. The thing that's an issue is for example Columbine. I'm living in a small country with strict guncontrol and people here don't get their heads blown off just because they were in the wrong neighbourhood.

Sadisticktickler,how would you go about collecting all the guns in the U.S.?

 

[asutickler]

I'm living in a small country with strict guncontrol and people here don't get their heads blown off just because they were in the wrong neighbourhood.

Switzerland is a small nation with a very high rate of gun ownership (including assault rifles), because they have a small standing army and rely heavily on a citizen-based militia for their national defense. Strangely, Switzerland also has a very low rate of gun-related deaths and crime.



Edit: "Defense" does NOT have a "c" in it. 😛

 

[Knox The Hatter]

No one's out grabbing your guns, Steve. I mean, I do appreciate how you entertain yourself with this ludicrous scenario, but trust me on this...no one's gonna take your guns.
I guess, for me, Gun Control means keeping strict tabs on who goes out and buys a gun, wait times, strict licensing. Just like my belief is not everyone should get married and/or have children, not everyone should have guns. Many people I know aren't responsible enough to have them, they're not the type of people who respect them. Witness the ex-NBA moron on trial here in New Jersey for accidentally shotgunning a limo driver to death in his bedroom. He got in trouble with guns before, and he shouldn't have been aloud to have any. Period.
I don't believe in the confiscation of property. I doubt very seriously that said day will come. So, Danimal and Steve, please stop wasting your breath. Save it for more meaningful arguments.

 

[Haltickling]

Switzerland is a small nation with a very high rate of gun ownership (including assault rifles), because they have a small standing army and rely heavily on a citizen-based militia for their national defence. Strangely, Switzerland also has a very low rate of gun-related deaths and crime.

asu, Switzerland is hard to compare with other countries. First of all, the only people there who are allowed a gun are reserve soldiers (and of course all other gun-related jobs like cops, hunters etc). In other words, all gun owners are trained professionals, not just every Dick and John who wants a gun.

Second, the low crime rate there is due to the extremely high average living standard of the Swiss, one of the highest in the whole world. There are no slums, no gangs, and most crooks there wear pinstripe suits and sit in the bank offices. They don't need guns, they have computers... 😛

 

[asutickler]

I have to partially disagree, Hal. While military-class weapons (automatic rifles, etc.) are restricted to those in the armed services, citizens may obtain and own non-military firearms. In fact, Swiss laws restricting the sale of firearms are rather similar to current gun-control laws in the United States (i.e. purchaser must be of legal age, have no violent crime convictions, etc.).


http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html

 

[Roseblossom]

...trust me on this...no one's gonna take your guns.
I guess, for me, Gun Control means keeping strict tabs on who goes out and buys a gun, wait times, strict licensing.
Just like my belief is not everyone should get married and/or have children, not everyone should have guns...Period.

Exactly 😎

 

[Oddjob0226]

What I'd really like to see is the return to the legal carrying of swords. No, that isn't a joke. Automatically, they are not for everyone - they can be a pain to carry around, and you have to actually be proficient in using them for them to have any practicality. But that's the built in safety of them, not everyone is going to be able to use them. And forget hiding them!

There might be a few "crimes of passion" stabbings, true, but that already happens anyway. I'm sure crimes committed by swords wielders would go up, but you'd also see 'em coming. The people committing crimes with swords, quite frankly, would be easier to spot than the gun-toting criminal. And fewer innocent bystanders if swords were an option. No way a sword would be able to stand up to a gun when it came right down to it, but it wouldn't really need to, since currently unarmed people have no real defense against a gun anyway. On the other hand, a sword could break up a violent attack where no gun is present. A gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen could do tha, too, but there are law abiding citizens out there who do have a phobia of guns. A sword would be one more step towards their own self-defense. One more option. Learning to use the sword would take practice and self-discipline, so, like driving, it would be a right/priveledge that you have to earn, and you'd have the self esteem to go along with it so you'd be less likely to whip it out. Most people would still use a gun 1st and foremost for self defense, which is fine, but why not through out one more option, that has a little more history and ellegance built in? They look cool, too. I am a sword owner. I'd love to be able to wear some of mine in public, but I have no plan or desire to use them in any wrong way.

Why are concealed guns seemingly preferrable to non-concealed? If a gun is worn outside on a holster, where you could legally carry a non-concealed gun, you'd know who's armed and therefore who to possibly watch out for. You can still be ready for self defense, in fact, the gun would be out quicker in such cases. Anyone concealing their gun, you'd know they were up to no good. You'd have the law ON YOU SIDE to carry a gun, and you'd still want to hide it? Something's not right there. Why do concealed handgun laws always seem to be more favored to non-concealed gun laws?

 

[tyf69]

I don't know oddjob. Sounds like you've been watching too many episodes of Highlander. Kind of like someone showing up at a gunfight with a knife. Anyway, growing up in Louisiana we were tought that guns were for hunting. I know that people used guns to commit crimes, but back in the 50's we all were comfortable with guns. Whether they were in gunracks in the back of our trucks or just carried down mainstreet. Of course we were going to the gunsmith with them. Ever boy carried a knife back them also. It was generally used as a tool. Either to open a box or clean our fingernails. Only the hoods used them to cut someone. And there were more of us than them anyway. Guns in America aren't going to go away. It's bred in us. I own several. And all have a specific use. Some for hunting and some for protection. I've never killed a human being but don't think for one minute that if I encounter a burgler or someone in my home that is threatening me or my family, I will kill them. No questions asked. I'll shoot them dead on the spot. Because that's my right as a citizen.

 

[Oddjob0226]

......but don't think for one minute that if I encounter a burgler or someone in my home that is threatening me or my family, I will kill them. No questions asked. I'll shoot them dead on the spot. Because that's my right as a citizen.

I do it even if it wasn't my right. But I'd try to use one of my swords first. But this is a situation where an unconcealed handgun would be quicker to get to. That's what I'm saying, why hide them? The bad guys will always conceal them, but everyone - who wanted to carry them - would at least have them within easy reach in a worse case scenario.

You know, growing up I used to see full grun racks in pickup trucks, too. I don't any more, though.