Gun History

[Warbaby1943]

Note: Don't know if this is accurate but thought it was interesting and I think it will probably have some interesting comments. The remainder are not my words they were sent to me in an email. WB

I Thought you might appreciate this . . .

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, a total of 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:

List of 7 items:
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 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 US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely 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'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade Ame rica because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

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

[Rhabbi]

I agree with you about the thought provoking aspects of this, just wish I knew how accurate it is.

[Warbaby1943]

I agree with you about the thought provoking aspects of this, just wish I knew how accurate it is.

If I'm not mistaken I think awhile back someone from Australia said that these were accurate statistics for there. But don't quote me on that.

[crazy_grrluk]

I heard on our news yesterday that 1 in 5 adult males know of where to get a gun...that is just here in the UK. it was quite shocking really.

no wonder our gun crime has soared out of control...and we dont even have a gun law....because it is illegal to own one...unless it is registered and locked away...and even then its only farmers and land owners that are allowed the permits to own a gun. but they have to be fully policed checked 1st and renew their licence every year

[bthest]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade Ame rica because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

This is probably false. Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of Grass" quote is probably a myth. Likely the Japanese simply never had the capability to invade the US to begin with.

A funny story from the WWII: During the 'blitz' Britain enlisted the help of the NRA to get American gun owners to send them weapons and ammunition. Britain had enacted strict gun laws in the 1930s and as a result the home guard didn't have enough guns to go around, much less resist a German invasion.

[Guest 91108]

bthest. the japanese quote is true. taught in military science i had in college.

[Logic1]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

With statistics you can prove pretty much everything you wish to prove. It is just a matter of asking the right questions or using the numbers you get in a way you wish to prove whatever you wish.

Personally I am a citizen WITH or without a gun.
Do you feel scared of your own government, then it is time to get a new one!
I live in Sweden and we DO have guncontrol and still we are I think nr8 in the list of number of guns /100k citizens a country.
I am definitely pro guncontrol though

the question is here. Is this a general talk thread or is it a politics thread

[bthest]

bthest. the japanese quote is true. taught in military science i had in college.

The quote has never been verified by any source or document and it first appeared in the 1960s. Some versions of the quote were even attributed to an anonymous Soviet General or KGB agent.

I personally think it was made up.

[Warbaby1943]

This is probably false. Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of Grass" quote is probably a myth. Likely the Japanese simply never had the capability to invade the US to begin with.

A funny story from the WWII: During the 'blitz' Britain enlisted the help of the NRA to get American gun owners to send them weapons and ammunition. Britain had enacted strict gun laws in the 1930s and as a result the home guard didn't have enough guns to go around, much less resist a German invasion.

Not arguing because I don't know but "probably" doesn't say anything definite either.

[Warbaby1943]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

OK I'll play the devil's advocate even though I have already stated that those words are not mine, I just passed them along. In any case, does it matter what kind of ruling system you have once your citizens are disarmed and the only legal guns are in the hands of your military?

the question is here. Is this a general talk thread or is it a politics thread

What's your point or better yet does it really matter which it is? I think we are developing General Talk here.

[bthest]

Not arguing because I don't know but "probably" doesn't say anything definite either.

From what I've read I personally don't think Yamamoto said that. I'm not speaking as if its 100% beyond a doubt false.

[Logic1]

OK I'll play the devil's advocate even though I have already stated that those words are not mine, I just passed them along. In any case, does it matter what kind of ruling system you have once your citizens are disarmed and the only legal guns are in the hands of your military?


What's your point or better yet does it really matter which it is? I think we are developing General Talk here.

the difference is if you think you need to fear your government or not imho.
One party states tends to be more dangerous for the citizens than a democracy like those both you and me live in.

dont know but it could turn political but I am game for discussions here in any case.

[Guest 91108]

hrm, firearms aren't about the government as much as it's about educating the population (yes, that of the entire world) and not letting media bias turn them. therefor it should be/become general talk.

[margaret]

WB, all those statistics do is show a correlation. Correlation != causation. Actually, they don't even show that much of a correlation as there are a number of nations (for example, the UK, Australia, Canada, and Japan, according to wikipedia) that prohibit or strictly limit gun ownership that haven't had large-scale massacres. This e-mail sounds like propaganda and scare tactics to me.

[Ozme52]

and we dont even have a gun law....

Yes you do.

because it is illegal to own one

That's a gun law.

[rach]

We got a stricter gun law after a massacre and I don't really think it's fair to compare totalitarian regimes with modern day democracies. HOwever flawed the democracies may be!

[Ozme52]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

The USA just barely qualifies... and maybe not at all. There are a lot of people here who believe we just have two flavors of the same party, with the same agendas, just different approaches on how to get there.

With statistics you can prove pretty much everything you wish to prove. It is just a matter of asking the right questions or using the numbers you get in a way you wish to prove whatever you wish.

Actually 50% of all statistics are 100% correct half the time....

Personally I am a citizen WITH or without a gun.
Do you feel scared of your own government, then it is time to get a new one!

Sometimes I have to wonder. Right now I'm none too comfortable. I compare the freedoms and choices I had as a young adult to now and I do have to wonder. The rights my father had that I don't? Yeah, they're being eroded away.

[John56{vg}]

I agree with the wise Yoda/margeret and rach. I do own guns, but belive in some form of gun control. And margaret's logic is right. There are pleny of places where gun laws HAVE succeeded and are working.

[Ozme52]

One party states tends to be more dangerous for the citizens than a democracy like those both you and me live in.

Tell that to the Weimar Replublic...

Hitler was elected/chosen in a multi-party system. Then he declared a national emergency.

The President of the USA has the ability to declare a national emergency... which would, among other things, suspend national elections.

[Ozme52]

WB, all those statistics do is show a correlation. Correlation != causation. Actually, they don't even show that much of a correlation as there are a number of nations (for example, the UK, Australia, Canada, and Japan, according to wikipedia) that prohibit or strictly limit gun ownership that haven't had large-scale massacres. This e-mail sounds like propaganda and scare tactics to me.

Agreed. These instances are chosen to show the correlation the author wants to emphasize. And it's always more "horrific" to choose the genocidal examples.

I'm more interested in the statistics regarding crime. The Australian crime stats are significant in my mind. Other places show similar trends.

Florida, on the other hand, enacted "Castle" laws... meaning "a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it..." (including homes and cars and places of business as defendable) and there, violent crimes involving guns appeared to be on the decline... at least initially. I won't quote statistics... there are stats to prove and disprove both sides of the arguement.

[Sir_G]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

With statistics you can prove pretty much everything you wish to prove. It is just a matter of asking the right questions or using the numbers you get in a way you wish to prove whatever you wish.

The stats that have been quoted in the initial post are pretty spot on. I'm Australian and would go so far as to say things have actually gotten worse than when they were collated.

I'm suprised at the naivety of some of the posts in this thread. One Party systems commit the atrocities cited much more efficiently than "democracies" but don't kid yourself that democracies don't do it. They tend to do it overseas in other countries rather than at home where the populace are armed. The U.S. is a case in point as is Australia for that matter. Our Prime Minister has even gone as far as to say he has a "mandate" from the people to enact whatever laws he wants, when he wants and has done so. So logic I think the comparison is more than valid.

How many deaths are George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and the rest of the coalition of the willing personally responsible for. They wave a flag called democracy and their cause is to stamp out all the evil terrorists. Yet with all those recourses Bin Laden still produces and releases his videos and terrorists proliferate world wide. Is it just a side show to distract the worlds population from a bigger hidden agenda like eroding our freedoms ie the Patriot Act in the U.S. and all the other legislation that has been brought in world wide to "protect us" from that evil. Here in Australia they promote and advertise that we should dob in our neighbors if we see or hear anything suspicious. The catch cry is Be Alert Not Alarmed. They encourage suspicion, mistrust and betrayal of friends and family if necessary.

Politicians have manipulated statistics for as long as they have been around. As have lobby groups, corporations, clubs etc etc. They will continue to do so. Criminals have armed themselves since Adam was a boy and will continue to do so. Why people are so bent out of shape about law abiding citizens owning guns for recreational sports, self defence, sorting out corrupt governments and invaders is beyond me.

In my humble opinion a well armed law abiding populace keeps the government somewhat in check and honest...scratch honest leave in check. Have checks in place such as criminal background, citizenship and mental health checks to weed out the villains. (yes I know villains will find ways to circumvent them) But I am talking about law abiding people here.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need any of this including guns. But it isn't and I see issues such as protecting our freedoms, right to walk down the street unmolested, the right to open and honest government as a personal responsibility. The moment we hand it to others to take care of is when we lose it. Be active, speak up and vote in elections before you lose that right too.

*Looks around, my goodness there was still soap in that box. Look at all the suds, blub.*

[hikochan]

This is probably false. Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of Grass" quote is probably a myth. Likely the Japanese simply never had the capability to invade the US to begin with.

The Japanese DID invade America - or at least they tried. That's what Pearl Harbor was all about. Their government had them so lashed into a frenzy that they didn't think they could possibly lose. It came as a real shock when we hit back so hard.

[TomOfSweden]

Well, that was certainly biased statistics and facts.

edit: Me personally. I don't want to carry around a gun all the time and shooting guns don't really get me a hard on. And if I'm not planning to carry a gun around I'd rather nobody did. My theory is that people with guns for "defending their freedoms" and "ready to fight crime" are really looking for a reason to shoot anybody. For the rush. IMHO

[TomOfSweden]

The Japanese DID invade America - or at least they tried. That's what Pearl Harbor was all about. Their government had them so lashed into a frenzy that they didn't think they could possibly lose. It came as a real shock when we hit back so hard.

I thought Perl Harbour was pre-emptive? They knew USA was going to join the war sooner or later and they wanted to get a head start. I don't think they had any plans to invade USA. They had hardly troops to control what they already had conquered by 1942.

[John56{vg}]

Tom,

I don't think so. The war Cabinet of Japan ordered Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. But he knew that it would be "akin to waking a sleeping giant." It sped our entry into World War II.

[ElectricBadger]

Oooo goody, a nice thread!

First, Pearl Harbor: There are multiple views on this. The US embargo on oil had created a situation where Japan had to either surrender nearly all of their empire as untenable or invade sources of oil in the south pacific, which would provoke war with Australia & the US. Invading the US was never a viable option (no Japanese invasion was ever assembled, or ever close to being assembled), they simply wanted to destroy the US naval domination of the region. So...our armament situation had as much to do with it as our bubblegum production. On the other hand, they DID invade parts of Alaska...where the oil is...but Midway made that untenable, as their supplies would be vulnerable.

Second: Democracies dont' have a great track record for defending civil liberties. The Athenian democracy had more slaves than citizens. Robespierre's cry of "Let Terror be the order of the day!" was spoken and heartily endorsed in the midst of a fully elected ruling body. Hitler was elected democratically, and the Nazi party had the largest vote in public elections. British democracy has been...rather brutal: the only period when Parlaiment ruled without a monarch was among it's bloodiest. See Irish history to find how well their rights were protected democratically. And calling American democracy a defender of rights is hard to stomach: slavery was a VERY democratic institution (as in, the majority of Americans supported it, even at the start of the Civil War). So were the Jim Crow laws, Red Scares/McCarthyism, Veitnam drafts, Japanese internment camps, and the Patriot Act. So no, we don't have to fear a mass extermination, but claiming democracy keeps us safe is hard to swallow: democracy is by definition the will of the majority over that of the minority. And finally...keep in mind that America gained its independence by force of arms and very horrible bloodshed (only the Civil War saw a greater percentage of Americans killed) against what was then the most democratic country in the world.

As for fearing our governments, part of the reason we don't is that we don't HAVE to. We don't just have ideals, we have ways to enforce those ideals. The automatic response to such a thought as mass extermination in the US is "That would never happen; they wouldn't get away with it, people wouldn't stand for it." Well...who would make sure they wouldn't? Who would stand? Yes, there would be repurcussions, and knowing that eliminates the need for any repurcussions.

[Ozme52]

Well, that was certainly biased statistics and facts.

edit: Me personally. I don't want to carry around a gun all the time and shooting guns don't really get me a hard on. And if I'm not planning to carry a gun around I'd rather nobody did. My theory is that people with guns for "defending their freedoms" and "ready to fight crime" are really looking for a reason to shoot anybody. For the rush. IMHO

I feel the opposite. That they really want to protect themselves. The folk looking for a rush will have semi-automatics in the trunk of their cars. Those packing a pistol won't draw unless they have to. (Also a big IMO)

[Ozme52]

I thought Perl Harbour was pre-emptive? They knew USA was going to join the war sooner or later and they wanted to get a head start. I don't think they had any plans to invade USA. They had hardly troops to control what they already had conquered by 1942.

True. And Pearl Harbor was a US base on a US territory, but not a US state. No more than Guam or Puerto Rico is today. So technically, not the USA.

And whether or not one agrees with that definition of the USA... it's still not an invasion. There were no troops sent. It was strictly an attack on the US fleet. They didn't even destroy the repair facilities. (Intended for the 2nd or 3rd wave.)

[TomOfSweden]

EB. There's a confusion of terminology here. There's a huge difference between plain old "democracy" and "liberal democracy". China today is democratic, it's just not the type of democracy we've become accustomed to after the enlightenment. When people today say "democracy" I'd say that they by default mean "liberal democracy" and the interpretation of the opposite is mostly down to a know-it-all trying to shine a bit isn't it?

A very important thing to bear in mind is that there to date have still not been any armed conflicts between two functioning liberal democracies.

USA wasn't a fully functioning liberal democracy until 1920 with every state allowing women to vote. No matter how often George Washington use the word "freedom" in 1776.

I am impressed by your Pearl Harbour knowledge.

[Guest 91108]

...
edit: Me personally. I don't want to carry around a gun all the time and shooting guns don't really get me a hard on. And if I'm not planning to carry a gun around I'd rather nobody did. My theory is that people with guns for "defending their freedoms" and "ready to fight crime" are really looking for a reason to shoot anybody. For the rush. IMHO

False. Those who carry are not doing so "for the rush" or the desire "to shoot anybody" . I can't speak for residents in other states but in the 12 years I've carried and kept up with the laws and such concerning it in this state.... only One Permit holder has ever been charged with a gun related crime and it was the firing or shooting someone.. It was actually for brandishing.. which in this state means to show publically. what happened according to reports is he showed a friend at restaurant his new firearm thinking noone saw, but the waitress called the cops, hence brandishing.

I CCW, as does the wife and most of my rl friends. And I will ensure my son is able to carry when he is of age. Far as I know, I'm the only one to have pulled mine legally. I've pulled it three times in the 12 years I've carried. And I've not had to fire the first shot yet. Merely pulling it on the three who were criminally minded was enough to stop the situation. and of the three.. two were gangbanger members... I did use it once before i had my CCW to stop a rape/assault in the state of Florida while down there on vacation. Nothing happened as a result of my use; but there is one less criminal in the world today. And I would do it again for the same reason..