A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

[JustCoolGene]

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.

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!

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

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN
EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

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

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

History shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.


Gene

[Robert Fischer]

Why post this propaganda ?

[newtothegame]

Maybe because the other side of the propoganda is flooding the mainstream media......:bang:
Sure its one sided...but no different them the MM....:lol:

[Robert Goren]

As if any those groups would have a chance to stop what to them if they had guns. As if any American has a chance against the police or the army.We hear of a nut with a gun or few guns take on the police almost daily. It never ends well for the nut with the gun(s). The police do not say "he has a gun so we are going to leave him alone". They call in more police with more guns.

[Dave Schwartz]

Gene, that was, uh, cool.

I posted it on my Facebook page.


Robert,

Which parts are untrue?

[elysiantraveller]

As if any those groups would have a chance to stop what to them if they had guns. As if any American has a chance against the police or the army.We hear of a nut with a gun or few guns take on the police almost daily. It never ends well for the nut with the gun(s). The police do not say "he has a gun so we are going to leave him alone". They call in more police with more guns.

I'm guessing you would have been a Loyalist huh?

[Actor]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!Japan did invade America during WWII. They captured Attu and Kiska in the Aleutian islands as a vanguard to an invasion of North America via Alaska and Canada. If you look at a globe instead of a Mercator projection map you will see this is the most direct route from Japan to the United States. America responded by building the AlCan highway as a line of supply should Japan invade Alaska. Had the war in the Pacific not gone well for the Allies the first battle for North America would have taken place in Alaska. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they believed Americans would not fight. The number of guns in the hands of U.S. civilians did not enter into their thinking.

[Robert Goren]

Gene, that was, uh, cool.

I posted it on my Facebook page.


Robert,

Which parts are untrue?The part that implies that if those groups had been armed that any of those events wouldn't have happened.
In 1959 the US armed Cuban government it army were massacred despite having plenty of guns.
In 1919, The Russian government and its army was massacured despite having plently of guns. .
In 1948 , there was in China there was a well armed army led by Chiang Kai-shek and backed and armed by the US government whose defeat led to the massacure discribed in the article. It was that government that put in the gun control laws in 1935.
In Cambodia, a well armed government again backed by the US government lost a civil war which led to the massacured. It was again that government that put in the gun controls yet they stop it being defeated by another political group.
At best the article mis-states what really happened and at worst it contains a bunch of down right lies.

[Robert Goren]

I'm guessing you would have been a Loyalist huh? I don't know where you get that idea.

[JustCoolGene]

Japan did invade America during WWII. They captured Attu and Kiska in the Aleutian islands as a vanguard to an invasion of North America via Alaska and Canada. If you look at a globe instead of a Mercator projection map you will see this is the most direct route from Japan to the United States. America responded by building the AlCan highway as a line of supply should Japan invade Alaska. Had the war in the Pacific not gone well for the Allies the first battle for North America would have taken place in Alaska. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they believed Americans would not fight. The number of guns in the hands of U.S. civilians did not enter into their thinking.

From http://wiki.answers.com

After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships... all fighting the Germans.
So, why did they not invade? After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer... they knew that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them. The world's largest army... America's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number differently. Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran. More than in France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters . . . all of whom have now returned home.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer, it's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

[elysiantraveller]

The part that implies that if those groups had been armed that any of those events wouldn't have happened.
In 1959 the US armed Cuban government it army were massacred despite having plenty of guns.
In 1919, The Russian government and its army was massacured despite having plently of guns. .
In 1948 , there was in China there was a well armed army led by Chiang Kai-shek and backed and armed by the US government whose defeat led to the massacure discribed in the article. It was that government that put in the gun control laws in 1935.
In Cambodia, a well armed government again backed by the US government lost a civil war which led to the massacured. It was again that government that put in the gun controls yet they stop it being defeated by another political group.
At best the article mis-states what really happened and at worst it contains a bunch of down right lies.

Don't these examples kind of prove the premise of the OP?

[Actor]

After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started.That was what U.S. leaders feared at the time. In fact the Japanese had no such plan. On 7 Dec 1941 Japan's troop ships were on their way to invade the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Their carriers were at the end of their range. An attack on California would have stretched their military to its limits and they knew it.
The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River.I fail to see how this addresses my post. If the Chief actually said that it shows wrong headed thinking on his part, i.e., an invasion starting in California. Their invasion of the Aleutians took place several months later.
Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships... all fighting the Germans.We were not at war with Germany on 7 Dec 1941. Germany declared war on us on 11 Dec. I think you will find the actual size of our armed forces was around 500,000.

[Actor]

Don't these examples kind of prove the premise of the OP?I don't see how.

[Tom]

I don't know where you get that idea.
You would have the Founding Fathers unarmed.

btw, what were their odds against the British empire going in?

[mostpost]

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.

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!

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

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN
EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

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

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

History shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.


Gene
Dumbest post of the year and we have had some dumb ones. To blame the events you list above on gun control while ignoring the kinds of governments involved is ignorance of the worst kind. These were all totalitarian governments. The United States is not a totalitarian government, nor is it likely to be one.

The way to prevent the US government from becoming totalitarian is not by giving every fool a gun. It is by electing public officials who are as dedicated to preserving democracy as the people who vote for them.

We are not living in Colonial America. The United States Army does not just have muskets. Their firepower exceeds that of the average person a million fold. Not only do they have a huge advantage in weaponry, but the have a trained coordinated force to apply that power. We-as individuals-can never force the government to obey the Constitution. Only the force of law can do that.

[Tom]

Dumbest post of the year and we have had some dumb ones.

Yes, and most of them were from YOU! :lol::lol::lol:

But this one doesn't make the list. Sorry, but thank you for playing.
Now, run along.

[elysiantraveller]

We are not living in Colonial America. The United States Army does not just have muskets. Their firepower exceeds that of the average person a million fold. Not only do they have a huge advantage in weaponry, but the have a trained coordinated force to apply that power. We-as individuals-can never force the government to obey the Constitution. Only the force of law can do that.

I nominate you to go tell that to the Taliban.

[mostpost]

That was what U.S. leaders feared at the time. In fact the Japanese had no such plan. On 7 Dec 1941 Japan's troop ships were on their way to invade the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Their carriers were at the end of their range. An attack on California would have stretched their military to its limits and they knew it.
The purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to keep the US from interfering in Japanese plans in Southeast Asia. There was never any intention of invading the US mainland. I doubt if toocoolgene will be able to produce historical proof that any Japanese general said the reason that they did not invade was because they were worried about a few good ole boys with rifles.
I fail to see how this addresses my post. If the Chief actually said that it shows wrong headed thinking on his part, i.e., an invasion starting in California. Their invasion of the Aleutians took place several months later.
We were not at war with Germany on 7 Dec 1941. Germany declared war on us on 11 Dec. I think you will find the actual size of our armed forces was around 500,000.

The army had that time had 190,000 troops. I don't know about the Navy Air Force and Marines, but since they are traditionally much smaller, I'm guessing 500,000 is high.

[elysiantraveller]

The part that implies that if those groups had been armed that any of those events wouldn't have happened.
In 1959 the US armed Cuban government it army were massacred despite having plenty of guns.
In 1919, The Russian government and its army was massacured despite having plently of guns. .
In 1948 , there was in China there was a well armed army led by Chiang Kai-shek and backed and armed by the US government whose defeat led to the massacure discribed in the article. It was that government that put in the gun control laws in 1935.
In Cambodia, a well armed government again backed by the US government lost a civil war which led to the massacured. It was again that government that put in the gun controls yet they stop it being defeated by another political group.
At best the article mis-states what really happened and at worst it contains a bunch of down right lies.

They are examples of outgunned oppositions beating back a superior force.

[hcap]

They are examples of outgunned oppositions beating back a superior force.Most movements overthrowing governments recently have relied on social media, the internet, and organization. In an armed conflict today facing an overwhelming military and weaponry, we would not stand a chance, and any one recommending such idiocy is re-running "Red Dawn" in their simplistic brains with a few other video game titles thrown in.

But then again there has been irrational fear among ( gee, I wonder who) (fill in the blanks____)Since Obama was elected back in '08

Maybe we can appoint Lucky LaPierre general of the insurrectiojn leading a bunch of middle aged men out to battle our own military?

Of course this all is only a consideration if we become a ruthless totalitarian state. Not likely anytime soon.

[Dahoss2002]

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.

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!

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

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN
EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

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

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

History shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.


Gene
I'm proud to have the right to own and shoot firearms. I don't hunt much anymore but I still target practice and enjoy it.

[elysiantraveller]

Most movements overthrowing governments recently have relied on social media, the internet, and organization. In an armed conflict today facing an overwhelming military and weaponry, we would not stand a chance, and any one recommending such idiocy is re-running "Red Dawn" in their simplistic brains with a few other video game titles thrown in.

Syria, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya... :rolleyes:

The point is RG in a attempt to disprove the premise actually bolstered it.

[hcap]

Syria, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya... :rolleyes:

The point is RG in a attempt to disprove the premise actually bolstered it.The original chain letter/propaganda piece portrayed a very different world than a civilian insurrection today in the US would face

All the countries you point to have less than 10th rate militaries.The Afghans have been fighting for years and don't watch TV or play video games They have a culture very different than our crew of armchair warriors and Generals waddling down to the 7 eleven for a Burpee, and then home to take a 2 hour crap. Most couldn't walk a mile with a 40lb pack, or even with a bag of chips.

[BlueShoe]

As if any those groups would have a chance to stop what to them if they had guns. As if any American has a chance against the police or the army.
Usually not mentioned is that LE and military forces are also citizens and human beings, and many would side with an insurrection against a tyranical government and would refuse to use force and fire on those in revolt. Many would join the rebel side taking their weapons and combat skills with them. In every civil war in history the armed forces have splintered, some remaining with the oppressive government and some joining the other side.

[boxcar]

Dumbest post of the year and we have had some dumb ones. To blame the events you list above on gun control while ignoring the kinds of governments involved is ignorance of the worst kind. These were all totalitarian governments. The United States is not a totalitarian government, nor is it likely to be one.

Why not? If the state takes our guns away, what to stop full-blown tyranny?

The way to prevent the US government from becoming totalitarian is not by giving every fool a gun. It is by electing public officials who are as dedicated to preserving democracy as the people who vote for them.

But politicians aren't trustworthy -- not anywhere near as trustworthy as my little arsenal.

We are not living in Colonial America. The United States Army does not just have muskets. Their firepower exceeds that of the average person a million fold. Not only do they have a huge advantage in weaponry, but the have a trained coordinated force to apply that power. We-as individuals-can never force the government to obey the Constitution. Only the force of law can do that.

Providing we don't have an Obama in office who selectively enforces what laws he deems worthy.

You're really big on irrational faith, aren't you?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Usually not mentioned is that LE and military forces are also citizens and human beings, and many would side with an insurrection against a tyranical government and would refuse to use force and fire on those in revolt. Many would join the rebel side taking their weapons and combat skills with them. In every civil war in history the armed forces have splintered, some remaining with the oppressive government and some joining the other side.

Point well made! I think many (perhaps even most) in our military would have very serious reservations about firing on their own. What many people overlook is that the folks in the armed forces have civilian friends and relatives who are armed, and they would be killing them, as well.

Boxcar

[hcap]

I actually agree with BlueShoe and box, the military would be the deciding factor in an insurrection.

Not guns

[Robert Goren]

I actually agree with BlueShoe and box, the military would be the deciding factor in an insurrection.

Not gunsAnybody with any sort of a brain agrees that. This is not 1770. The difference between the kind arms that the military have and any group of rebels could assemble is far too great. This was proved in the 1950s and 1960s when the federal government sent the National Guard into southern states to enforce the civil rights of black citizens. The local law enforcement bolstered by racists groups armed with hunting weapons and hand guns didn't stand a chance. (Thank God.)The gap between what the American military has weapons and the civilians has only widened since them. The American military would make short work of any revolt. I don't understand why the gun nuts don't get that.

[Steve R]

[snip]

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

[snip]


Gene
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that prevents any rational discussion. The site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate presents data on firearm-related death rates by country. For the total firearm-related death rate there are 54 countries with a lower rate than Switzerland. There are 44 with a lower firearm-related homicide rate, 49 with a lower firearm-related suicide rate and 32 with a lower firearm-related accidental death rate. 74% of the recorded homicides in Switzerland in 2010 were committed with guns.

[dartman51]

Why isn't there an equal outcry to ban tobacco products? There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths every year. And 80% start smoking before age 18.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm

Cigarettes
Each day in the United States, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers.

[HUSKER55]

I must be misreading the chart you listed. Switzerland has 3.5 homicides per 100,000 people and the rate using guns is 1 per 200,000. (.52 per 100,000)

[Robert Goren]

Why isn't there an equal outcry to ban tobacco products? There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths every year. And 80% start smoking before age 18.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm

Cigarettes
Each day in the United States, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers.There has been. Thing have change in last few tears. The place where people can smoke is highly restricted. Smokefree work places are the rule. So are smokefree apartment buildings. Even Bars are going smoke free,

[dartman51]

There has been. Thing have change in last few tears. The place where people can smoke is highly restricted. Smokefree work places are the rule. So are smokefree apartment buildings. Even Bars are going smoke free,

I'm aware of all of that. The problem is, it hasn't stopped people from dying, and it hasn't stopped kids from picking up the habit. My point is, you can make all the laws you want, but there will ALWAYS be those that don't adhere to them.

[Steve R]

I must be misreading the chart you listed. Switzerland has 3.5 homicides per 100,000 people and the rate using guns is 1 per 200,000. (.52 per 100,000)
You can rank order the countries in each category by clicking on the column head, either lowest to highest of highest to lowest. Then you can see that Switzerland has the 55th lowest total firearm-related death rate (between Costa Rica and Finland) and the 45th lowest gun-related homicide rate (between Malta and Kyrgyzstan).

[thaskalos]

Why isn't there an equal outcry to ban tobacco products? There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths every year. And 80% start smoking before age 18.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm

Cigarettes
Each day in the United States, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers.

Make no mistake...if 56.6% of the total cost of a pack of cigarettes was not some form of tax, then smoking would be disallowed in this country -- just as they've disallowed driving without a seat belt.

A person cannot endanger his life by driving without a seat belt...but he can smoke himself to death.

[dartman51]

Make no mistake...if 56.6% of the total cost of a pack of cigarettes was not some form of tax, then smoking would be disallowed in this country -- just as they've disallowed driving without a seat belt.

A person cannot endanger his life by driving without a seat belt...but he can smoke himself to death.

You are exactly right Thas. You can kill yourself if you want, but you have to PAY for the privilege. :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Why isn't there an equal outcry to ban tobacco products? ...

Because if they have any sense at all, they know they better get rid of the guns before they try some crazy stunt like that. :D

[Actor]

Why isn't there an equal outcry to ban tobacco products?We tried banning alcohol. That didn't work. Why should we expect banning tobacco to work?

I'd love to ban tobacco. Tobacco killed my father, my kid brother and my father-in-law. But it won't work.

There's a ban on marijuana, cocaine and a host of other drugs. Does anyone believe that's working?

Back to guns. I'd love an outright ban. But I know it won't work. It would just drive the gun culture underground. We need to find some middle ground.

[Robert Fischer]

Robert,

Which parts are untrue?

the post uses a technique called "implied causation".
The beauty of it is that it doesn't need untruths to deceive.

[TJDave]

We tried banning alcohol. That didn't work. Why should we expect banning tobacco to work?

I'd love to ban tobacco. Tobacco killed my father, my kid brother and my father-in-law. But it won't work.

There's a ban on marijuana, cocaine and a host of other drugs. Does anyone believe that's working?

Back to guns. I'd love an outright ban. But I know it won't work. It would just drive the gun culture underground. We need to find some middle ground.

Bans don't work because we believe in things like representative government, trial by jury and porportional justice. A totalitarian regime would have no trouble banning tobacco or alcohol or spitting on the sidewalk. Just make the punishment more than one would care to risk...And enforce it to the letter.

[Robert Goren]

Bans don't work because we believe in things like representative government, trial by jury and porportional justice. A totalitarian regime would have no trouble banning tobacco or alcohol or spitting on the sidewalk. Just make the punishment more than one would care to risk...And enforce it to the letter. It depends on what they are banning. There are always few who take up the banned item out of spite. Banning civilians from having A-bombs has worked very well despite the fact the plans for making one is all over the internet and you can get the materals for make one if you really try. Certainly the " dirty" materals for making a "dirty bomb" can gotten at most hospitals, at least in this part of the country.
As for smoking, when I was in high school, almost every non athlete male smoked by the time they were seniors. I don't believe that is anywhere near the case now.

[boxcar]

We tried banning alcohol. That didn't work. Why should we expect banning tobacco to work?

I'd love to ban tobacco. Tobacco killed my father, my kid brother and my father-in-law. But it won't work.

There's a ban on marijuana, cocaine and a host of other drugs. Does anyone believe that's working?

Back to guns. I'd love an outright ban. But I know it won't work. It would just drive the gun culture underground. We need to find some middle ground.

I thought the "middle ground" is where we've been all these decades?

Boxcar

[Actor]

I thought the "middle ground" is where we've been all these decades?

BoxcarYou may be right. :bang:

[Tom]

Bans don't work because we believe in things like representative government...

....Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny.
Representative government....that is hilarious! :lol::lol::lol::bang:

[racko]

If they could figure out how to tax 56.6% then Mary Jane would be legal

[Red Knave]

I must be misreading the chart you listed. Switzerland has 3.5 homicides per 100,000 people and the rate using guns is 1 per 200,000. (.52 per 100,000)
I think you are mis-reading it. The rate of firearm related deaths is 3.5 per 100,000. Homicides with firearms is .52 per 100,000.

Suicides seem pretty high also.

[JustCoolGene]

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, media hysteria and bipartisan political support for punishing gun owners increased. As a consequence, our gun laws were tightened.

We could have all responded like rational human beings and grieved for the deceased (35 in all). Instead, militant anti-gun activists viewed the massacre as an opportunity, and set out to punish freedom.

Hitler supported gun control. So did Stalin. Still, our activists were bent on portraying the gun-tolerant United States as the real menace. “Australia doesn’t want to end up like the Wild West,” went one common argument.

Yet, in 2011, I’m compelled to ask: When will we learn from our mistakes and admit we were wrong? And I ask this question because many Australians are victims of violence. In contrast, for criminals and their enablers, “gun control” is the gift that keeps on giving.

Take Melbourne, Australia’s second most populous city. Between January 16, 1998 and April 19, 2010, 36 criminal figures or partners were murdered during the Melbourne Gangland Killings.

Alas, family environments, from businesses to parks, were drawn into the mess.

The passage of gun control laws fueled our illegal arms market, and gun-hungry gangs multiplied. The significance: many gangland deaths/wars involved bullets. The tribal fights exploded after the Port Arthur massacre-inspired gun laws, against mainstream media predictions.

To concerned Victorians, too, it felt like our criminal class was running the state. The problem though (in Australia at least) is that campaigning newspapers and television networks are never wrong — no matter how many people are killed or threatened by guns, there’s always a “complex” excuse.

The odd thing about gun control is that a culture of censorship often increases after anti-gun laws fail to deliver. So, it would be hard for an Australian writer to submit a piece on Switzerland’s pro-gun ownership culture and low gun crime rate because our media isn’t “ready” to accept opposing views. Only a “thought control” culture can sustain a “gun control” culture.

When one punishes law-abiding citizens for the sins of criminals, good intentions will backfire. By criminalizing productive citizens, we have made life easier for criminals, and wasted precious police resources on policing farmers.

Moreover, Australians were wrong to exchange scare stories about the “Wild West” because few understood that the Old West was not so wild, according to modern historians. And, we’re still too quick to report on massacres in firearm-welcoming America and too reluctant to report on bigger massacres in firearm-restricting Mexico. We’re quick to report on shootouts across the U.S. but unwilling to report on thousands of Americans who were saved by pointing their easy-to-access guns at criminals, a.k.a. would-be thieves, murderers and rapists.

Also lost in the emotion is the fact that the alleged Arizona killer, Jared Lee Loughner, adored Mein Kampf, by the National Socialist/gun control dictator Adolph Hitler (not More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott). So, do we need to reward and/or excuse society’s killers?

At times like these, it’s easy to fall prey to post-massacre opportunists. Still, reason and not emotion is our best guide. The facts (to quote the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia) are as follows:

Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.

Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s, suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting shooters.

The AIC’s ‘Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report’ stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.

Gun control is a myth, or rather a mountain of myths sustained by campaigning elites in secure buildings with armed bodyguards: the myth that if law-abiding citizens hand their guns over to the big government to burn, then we will enter a new peace; the myth that if we feel that we are gun controllers, then we are humanitarian citizens even when statistics undermine our self-praising image; and the myth that punishing thousands of farmers and sporting shooters, for the crimes of others, will bring healing. But we (meaning anti-gun Australians) were (and are) wrong.

Ben-Peter Terpstra is a freelance writer based in regional Victoria, Australia. He has lived and worked in the Northern Territory, Melbourne, Kyoto and London (England).

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/#ixzz2G5pteTzo

Gene

[hcap]

More nonsense. DailyCaller is junk

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

Just 12 days after the 1996 shooting in Port Arthur, then-Prime Minister John Howard – a conservative who had just been elected with the help of gun owners – pushed through not only new gun control laws, but also the most ambitious gun buyback program Australia had ever seen. Some 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic rifles were handed in and destroyed under the program.

Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.

A paper for the American Law and Economics Review by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University and Christine Neill of the Wilfrid Laurier University reports that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 percent, "with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.”

Perhaps the most convincing statistic for many, though, is that in the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings in the country. Since the new law, there hasn’t been one shooting spree.

In the wake of the shooting, polls indicated that up to 85 percent of Australians supported the measures taken by the government.


http://guncontrol.org.au/

Our Strict Gun Laws Have Saved Thousands of Australian Lives
Posted on September 7, 2012

The two graphs below show how the rates of firearm homicide and firearm suicide have varied in Australia over the period 1915 to 2006. More recent figures (up to 2009) suggest that the rates remain near 0.1 per 100,000 of population for firearm homicide and 0.8 per 100,000 of population for firearm suicide. It is clear that the declines in death rates are associated with the list of stricter gun laws introduced, as shown on the right hand side of each graph.

Several Australian gun clubs are deceiving the public by claiming that the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 has not been successful. The Sporting Shooters Association (SSAA) and the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting are two examples. We believe that soon our politicians will realise that it is often unwise to trust gun club leaders on gun law matters.

The two graphs shown below use Australian Bureau of Statistics data, they show how the number of deaths by firearm homicide and firearm suicide have been greatly reduced since stricter gun laws were introduced after 32 people were murdered in six massacres by legal gun owners in 1987, and 41 people were murdered by non-criminal gun owners in two massacres in 1996.

http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png


.................................................. ...........................

You are quoting extremely dubious garbage from garbage sources.

[Tom]

More nonsense. DailyCaller is junk

...and guncontrol.org is not biased?
Admit it, you were smitten with the chart, that's all! :lol::lol::lol:

[JustCoolGene]

NCPA National Center For Policy Analysis

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Gene

[hcap]

..and guncontrol.org is not biased?
Admit it, you were smitten with the chart, that's all!

The charts use Australian Bureau of Statistics data The DailyCaller uses patterns in belly button lint of the first 100 Ayn Rand adherents who answer and participate in their online polls who call themselves nicks like John Galt Jr. Or John Galt III.

[hcap]

From your site:

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:Look at the graph I posted. Read the article,. You and the NCPA National Center For Policy Analysis are dead wrong.

The first graph above is homicides. This one is suicides

http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-2.png

[JustCoolGene]

Look at the graph I posted. Read the article,. You and the NCPA National Center For Policy Analysis are dead wrong.

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.

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

The fact remains that 56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because Governments implemented gun- control.

Because of Government Gun-Control...

I am sure German on Jew gun violence increased.
I am sure Soviet on Soviet gun violence increased.
I am sure Turk on Armenian gun violence increased.
I am sure Chinese on Chinese gun violence increased.
I am sure Guatemalan on Mayan gun violence increased.
I am sure Cambodian on Cambodian gun violence increased.
I am sure Ugandan on Christan gun violence increased.

Today (2012), in the Middle East, I am sure that Muslim on Cristian gun violence has increased.

There is more to the history of Mankind regarding gun-control than your silly graph shows.

Gene

[Tom]

The fact remains that 56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because Governments implemented gun- control.

They also controlled the press.
We have done that already.
They ignored their constitutions.
We have already done that.

Trust the devil before you trust your government.
The Devil has some degree of honor.

Let this wimps all whine and cry - having a means to defend ourselves and our property is our God given tight. It is OUR entitlement.

[hcap]

Good night guys. Give my regards to the Bilderbergers.
Meanwhile this guy is running a special on metallic chateaus

No sense letting Christmas interfere with proper protection from liberal
propaganda :cool:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-xPGTOpE0DQ/THLrCxmumbI/AAAAAAAACeE/mj4wzMXWPZ0/s320/glenn-beck-tin-foil-hat-thumb.jpg

[Tom]

So sorry to see that you did not get the debating skills you asked for for Christmas this year.

But hey, cut&paste is always cute.

[hcap]

So am I to assume you possess these debating skills?