"Gun Control" email

[87chevy]

I recieved this email from a friend. I thought it was interesting and entertaining. I take it with a grain of salt because none of the statistics are cited. But I imagine there is truth to what is said. And yes, I'm vehemently against "Gun Control" as it is used in this context.

"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

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. < /FONT>
------------------------------
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 America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
"

 

[TopHat]

I'm just gonna say this about Australia: That's scary! I think there may be a pattern emerging.

 

[Flerbizky]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
[/I][/B]

I believe it was something like - "Because there'd be a gun behind every straw of grass"...

We don't have legal guns in homes here in DK, so I'm leaving the rest of the thread to those affected.

 

[daan]

I'm just gonna say this about Australia: That's scary! I think there may be a pattern emerging.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

 

[Sureboss]

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.

So you think the Jews could've defended themselves against the SS? Pfft.

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.

Again, under one of the most ruthtless regimes in the 20th century, if not the most ruthless, given the amount who died.

Having guns to defend yourself against criminals is one thing. Having guns to defend yourself against dictatorships with the SS and such is another.

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

This was the only reason was it? They specifically said "Well most of them are armed, so no way!" Genuinely, I'd love to know if that was the reason.

 

[Danoff]

It's easy to use statistics to bolster the argument that guns help curtail crime, or that guns cause crime. I've seen convincing arguments made both ways, and both sides debunked.

Some countries have criminal statistics histories that play directly into the hands of the gun control enthusiasts (no England is not one of them). Some countries have statistics that play directly into the gun advocates.

Part of me wants to say "who cares!". I don't care whether it increases or decreases crime (though logic tells me that it decreases crime). What I care about is the simple fact that there is nothing inherently evil in owning a gun or defending yourself. And since there isn't, our justice system should reflect that.

 

[Car-less]

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, 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.

Christopher Columbus landed in South America in 1498 with NO gun control. Between 1498 and 1997 the indigenous population of Brazil alone has declined by 90%
------------------------------
The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries stopped supplying oil to the USA in 1973 causing an oil crisis. In 2003 the USA invaded Iraq.
655,000 civilians, unable to defend themselves were killed.


Anyone can take a few random statistics and stick them together to support whatever rediculous notion they like. Given another half hour I could probably 'prove' that America is the Devil, but we all know that is as rediculous as the two original statistics I quoted. I mean, nearly 20 years passed between the introduction of gun control and its supposed effects in the second instance.

 

[Danoff]

In 2003 the USA invaded Iraq.
655,000 civilians, unable to defend themselves were killed.

Probably a bad idea to pick statistics so easily refuted. Even statistics that can't be easily refuted can be misleading. It only compounds the problem when you're quoting a source that's lying.

 

[Famine]

Probably a bad idea to pick statistics so easily refuted. Even statistics that can't be easily refuted can be misleading. It only compounds the problem when you're quoting a source that's lying.

Like the bit about the Armenians in Turkey - estimates range from 300,000 to 1.5 million, but best-guess figures are 500,000-850,000. Not that it devalues it in any way, but the "document" uses the highest possible estimate of casualty figures.


It's also worth a note that:

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.

Between 1917 and 1923, unable to avoid the crossfire from rife gun possession, 13 million innocent Russian civilians were killed by their own forces.

Just thought I'd use the same language style for a minute to prove the point that the point is without point.

 

[Year.Zero]

Why does it leave out all those Nordic-European countries which have banned guns and have some of the lowest crime rates in the world?

Interesting. (I figured this would be about spam.)

 

[arora]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

 

[V1P3R]

I believe it was something like - "Because there'd be a gun behind every straw of grass"...

We don't have legal guns in homes here in DK, so I'm leaving the rest of the thread to those affected.

I'd laugh at that but then I get that TG episode in my head and...

 

[Famine]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"

I've never really understood that. How do you protect yourself against tyranny in government with a gun?

Say the government takes 80% of my wages straight out as income tax. How does a gun help me?

 

[Flerbizky]

I'd laugh at that but then I get that TG episode in my head and...

Of which episode do we speak ?...

 

[Sureboss]

I've never really understood that. How do you protect yourself against tyranny in government with a gun?

Say the government takes 80% of my wages straight out as income tax. How does a gun help me?

You can shoot yourself and then all your problems are gone.

 

[Mark T]

You can shoot yourself and then all your problems are gone.

Even better, shoot someone else and take their money.

 

[arora]

I've never really understood that. How do you protect yourself against tyranny in government with a gun?

Not 'a gun' that is why Jefferson said 'the people'

 

[Famine]

Not 'a gun' that is why Jefferson said 'the people'

Oooooooo-kay.

Folk are going to defend themselves from tyranny in government by throwing each other then?


How would "bearing arms" protect YOU from tyranny in government?

 

[Danoff]

How would "bearing arms" protect YOU from tyranny in government?

The idea, which was conceived of in a time without fighter jets and nuclear weapons, was that the people could band together and revolt against their government using their own personal weapons.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've never really understood that. How do you protect yourself against tyranny in government with a gun?

Say the government takes 80% of my wages straight out as income tax. How does a gun help me?

If you are the only person being disenfranchised by a truly tyrannical government then you can just move. But as a truly tyrannical government rarely ever just picks on one man then it would be the people in a group who stand up against their tyrannical government.


And considering the author, I think he had a specific frame of reference in mind:

 

[Famine]

The idea, which was conceived of in a time without fighter jets and nuclear weapons, was that the people could band together and revolt against their government using their own personal weapons.

So, two questions naturally follow.

What exactly would the weapons be used for?

Why is it still relevant and oft-quoted by the pro- side in firearms possession debates?

 

[arora]

So, two questions naturally follow.

What exactly would the weapons be used for?

Why is it still relevant and oft-quoted by the pro- side in firearms possession debates?

I did not post that quote to defend a pro- side in firearms possession, nor did I think this was a debate. History is always relevant to any discussion, so you could say; Jefferson's idea was for the population to own guns to keep the government in check, and it did not work.

My opinion about gun rights is the same as my opinion about any rights granted in the U.S. constitution, take one away and take them all away.


My weapons are used for hunting deer, elk, and many sorts of birds to feed my family, also I spend alot of time fishing in high country where the bears are really big Home protection I supose, although I've never needed one for that.

 

[Famine]

I did not post that quote to defend a pro- side in firearms possession

I wasn't aware that I'd said you did.

nor did I think this was a debate.

That's pretty much all this forum gets used for

History is always relevant to any discussion, so you could say; Jefferson's idea was for the population to own guns to keep the government in check, and it did not work.

But the question is still unanswered - how does owning a gun help a citizen keep the government in check, or defend himself from its tyranny?

My opinion about gun rights is the same as my opinion about any rights granted in the U.S. constitution, take one away and take them all away.

That's... quite bizarre. Your rights, as granted in the US Constitution are always subject to amendment - by Amendment. In fact, the right to bear arms is an Amendment.

Yet you're of the opinion that if any of the articles in the Constitution is removed, they all must be?

 

[Danoff]

I think guns still offer the potential to revolt against the government. Look at what's happening in Iraq now. The US military - potent as it may be - is still struggling with the problem of occupation. If enough states revolted against the government, the military could probably not occupy them all. Though that's only the case if the citizens are armed.

It also works in little ways. Cops are less likely to bust down your door without due process if they think there might be someone on the other end with a firearm ready to shoot an intruder. I think it generally helps prevent abuse of power by government officials.

This is, of course, all an aside to the real issue in my mind - which is that people have an inalienable right to defend themselves.

 

[Famine]

I think guns still offer the potential to revolt against the government.

What would you do with the guns? If you believe in the Bill of Rights, surely you can't use them against anyone...

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Guns can't be used to protect yourself against the tyranny of government at all. For a gun to be effective in the way oft-quoted, it has to be used - and if you believe in the Constitution you cannot use a gun against a person.

This is, of course, all an aside to the real issue in my mind - which is that people have an inalienable right to defend themselves.

Also expressed in the Fourth Amendment.

You'll note that this includes the words "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,"

Does this extend to a person who holds a position in a government perceived to be tyrannical when an armed civilian militia comes for them?


Just for reference, I'm not particularly pro- or anti- guns - though I think the UK's idea of banning them completely is retarded, I'm not particularly convinced that the wording of the Second Amendment is any smarter.

 

[arora]

I wasn't aware that I'd said you did.

You didn't

But the question is still unanswered - how does owning a gun help a citizen keep the government in check, or defend himself from its tyranny?

I never said it did, I said that was Jefferson's idea

That's... quite bizarre. Your rights, as granted in the US Constitution are always subject to amendment - by Amendment. In fact, the right to bear arms is an Amendment.

Yet you're of the opinion that if any of the articles in the Constitution is removed, they all must be?

I could be wrong but I thought there was only one amendment overturned or removed and that would be prohibition. Origonaly the 18th? and removed 22nd or so?

 

[Famine]

I never said it did, I said that was Jefferson's idea

Nor did I say that you said it did. But you can answer the question posed as best you can. As you can see, I don't really get how one can defend oneself against "government" with a weapon without using it - so I don't see how one can cite the Second Amendment as a reason for having guns when the natural outcome of the Second Amendment would be against the spirit of the Constitution...

But I am not an American and do not have understanding of your laws or judiciary.

I could be wrong but I thought there was only one amendment overturned or removed and that would be prohibition. Origonaly the 18th? and removed 22nd or so?

See above

 

[Danoff]

What would you do with the guns? If you believe in the Bill of Rights, surely you can't use them against anyone...

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Guns can't be used to protect yourself against the tyranny of government at all. For a gun to be effective in the way oft-quoted, it has to be used - and if you believe in the Constitution you cannot use a gun against a person.

I see what you're getting at now.

You band together with a group of rebels (hopefully a sizeable portion of the country) and your declare yourselves independent of the government you're revolting against. The best example that we have for this is the American civil war.

When the government comes for you (and they will because you've stopped paying taxes), you can defend yourself against the force that would be used to strip you of your basic human rights. This is how you justify your belief in the bill of rights while fighting off your government.

If your rights are being violated, you're allowed to shoot the enforcer. Even if it wasn't his idea.

 

[Famine]

I see what you're getting at now.

You band together with a group of rebels (hopefully a sizeable portion of the country) and your declare yourselves independent of the government you're revolting against. The best example that we have for this is the American civil war.

When the government comes for you (and they will because you've stopped paying taxes), you can defend yourself against the force that would be used to strip you of your basic human rights. This is how you justify your belief in the bill of rights while fighting off your government.

If your rights are being violated, you're allowed to shoot the enforcer. Even if it wasn't his idea.

Denying him due process and trial - sixth Amendment, I think - ignoring one part of the Bill of Rights while being backed by another.

As your signature says, the majority have no right to vote away the rights of the minority - and the smallest minority is the individual.

So an individual declares himself independant of the government because it is oppressing him. He shoots the President. Isn't that just an assassination?

 

[V1P3R]

Of which episode do we speak ?...

Their trip to the US.