Rinion

Gun History

An interesting lesson in history. 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 a 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 32 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 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'.

Do you value your freedom?

__________________
"Before one can identify anything as "gray", one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. " Ayn Rand

Nurta

Not to detract from your story but it wreaks of urban legend

I personally thnk that if people want to kill they will find other means; case and point look at Scotland....they have violent deaths there committed by knives and swords. But sure some people will say their homicides by guns are low. People are going to kill each if they want to. I don't need a gun to defend myself but if I want one I should be allowed to have one.

__________________

Rinion

exactly which part sounds like urban legend? I never said all deaths are the result of guns, yes people that want to kill are going to find ways.

However, if someone threatens you with a knife and you pull a gun, chance are they wont charge and kill you. The same goes for assaults with guns. if they pull a gun on you and you pull one back, suddenly their life is in just as much Danger.

But if a criminal pulled a gun on me and I drew a sword in response? ya I'd be dead before I got close enough to use it.

So again, where exactly is the urban legend?
All those places DID enact gun control before those things happened, yes they probably would of done those things anyway. But, removing their ability to defend themselves on even ground made it that much easier.

Also, Take into context the Sword vs Gun argument presented above. For the Australian Figures.

The Homicides and Assaults may not even seem gun Related. they could of been killed with piano wire for what its worth, HOWEVER Criminals KNOW their victims will never be armed with a Gun and they are safe in that knowledge.

Fact: Criminal Break the law.
Fact: Gun control laws remove guns.
Conclusion: Criminal retain their fire arms illegally. Law abiding citizen also known as 'potential Victims' do not.

__________________
"Before one can identify anything as "gray", one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. " Ayn Rand

Nurta

Holy fuck get your undies out of a twist. All I said was it wreaks of urban legend... I say that b/c it looks like an email some goober sends me and 50 other people must do x or x will happen.

But since you misunderstood my reply I will explain it to you.

1. I believe in having a gun if I want one.
2. I don't think I need a gun to defend myself.
3. In countries like Scotland where gun control exists, violent crime still happens it just so happens to be with knives and swords. My point in making this statement was that if someone wants to kill someone it will be done with whatever means is available. So, IMO banning guns or enacting gun control is pointless.

I do agree that control doesn't curb a criminal from attaining a gun. Criminals will commit their crimes by whatever means necessary guns, piano wire, what have you...I agree gun control only controls the law abiding citizens.

Better?

__________________

Ethar

Sounds like a chain e-mail.

Savanja

Looked it up on Snopes. It was never legal for citizens to own firearms in Australia, so its misleading. The info is partially true.

I agree with Nurta. Its an important subject, but it shouldn't be mucked up with half truths and generic internet BS.

And I take particular issue with the thought that millions of Jews could have been saved had they simply had guns. The Nazis used fear, law, and brute force of a large military to gather and kill. Guns for the average citizen would have done no good. The bulk of the gun laws in Germany were brought on BY the Nazis themselves to make things easier, but they were already in power.

Edit: The info in the OP came from these sources: Death by "Gun Control"

Widem

this is a really good point...there should be no reason that pakistan or n korea shouldnt have nuclear capabilities.

Nurta

TOUCHE`
I wish we had a rep system I'd totally give you + rep for that comment It's a very good point even if I personally don't think anyone should have nuclear capabilities least of all N.K. or Pakistan.

__________________

Widem

i think after you saw my stance on it you wouldnt vote for me b/c well im all for the right to bear arms under most circumstances where criminal convictions and mental instability being grounds for the removal of your right but i digress. I was simply pointing out that maybe that line of logic ideally wont work. Would it be better if there were no guns on the planet? Yes. Is that realistic? No. so the only real option is to put everyone on the same playing field. What happens with the advent of new weapons is...a man goes crazy with a knife and kills 2 people before being subdued, a man goes crazy with a gun and kills 20 people before being subdued, a man goes crazy with a nuke and kills millions of people and most likely wont be subdued. The idea of matching weapon for weapon will only cause the madman to end his assualt early. the man with the gun is kill by an onlooker who also has a gun thus rendering only 4 people dead. man with the nuke doesnt fire the nuke b/c he doesnt want to get his ass blown up himself. This is the reality of the world despite how terribly it represents humanity.

Nurta

Nope, I think your comment is spot on and logical. If others had the same common sense, well... I'm fantasizing

__________________