GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Gun Control - Interesting Read (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=673059)

Bama 11-02-2006 11:38 AM
Gun Control - Interesting Read
 
Got this via email and whether you agree with gun control or not, it's 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 new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

. Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent)!

. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since 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.


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'.

Antonio 11-02-2006 11:48 AM
Franck will post in this thread in less than 3 seconds

Pleasurepays 11-02-2006 11:51 AM
there is no connection to "gun control" and any of those events. the author is trying to make a link that just isn't there. IF those people had guns, they still have to organize into cohesive groups of effective fighting forces to effectively challenge those governments and its resources... thats the stumbling block. not the possession of, or lack of guns.

Pleasurepays 11-02-2006 11:54 AM
for that matter, its just as accurate to say "because they didn't have a democratically elected government, xx million died as a result"

Antonio 11-02-2006 11:54 AM
oh, and btw, that post is total bullshit !!!!

this is what you learn in primary school, statistics are only meaningful when the events are related !!!!!

here you go: Sleazy Dream farted yesterday at 10 pm, exactly the same time 3 Chinese people committed suicide, does that mean that his fart killed them?

Does that mean that every time Sleazy farts 3 Chinese kill themselves?

Babaganoosh 11-02-2006 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonio (Post 11222633)
Does that mean that every time Sleazy farts 3 Chinese kill themselves?
Clearly not. If that were the case there wouldn't be nearly as many of the little fuckers.

bestcoolsite 11-02-2006 12:10 PM
:upsidedow :error

stickyfingerz 11-02-2006 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonio (Post 11222633)
oh, and btw, that post is total bullshit !!!!

this is what you learn in primary school, statistics are only meaningful when the events are related !!!!!

here you go: Sleazy Dream farted yesterday at 10 pm, exactly the same time 3 Chinese people committed suicide, does that mean that his fart killed them?

Does that mean that every time Sleazy farts 3 Chinese kill themselves?
Australia's statistics aren't releated? :uhoh

Anthony 11-02-2006 12:49 PM
The data from that email was taken from this report

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629

Quote:
Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous

Dr. Miguel Faria
Monday, June 26, 2000

Last August, the rugged Aussie survivalist whose real-life exploits inspired the "Crocodile Dundee" movies died in what then appeared to be a mysterious shootout with Australian police. A police sergeant was also killed in the incident.

It was reported that 44-year-old blond-haired Rodney William Ansell resembled uncannily Paul Hogan, the actor who played his part in the movie and the sequel. Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run-ins with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting "the Australian Outback on the map."

What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. "Crocodile Dundee" believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms.

In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.

It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked, and the government reacted quickly.

Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find individual freedom abhorrent. Consider the politics: There are three major parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party) and the ultra-left (Australian Democratic Party) – this last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues, land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.

As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22-caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.

Writing in The Gun Owners (Jan. 31, 2000), the newsletter for Gun Owners of America (GOA), former California State Senator H.L. Richardson notes: "They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100s. They even struck down pump shotguns: the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870...Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn¹t miss a one."

Be that as it may, at a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated.

Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban.

Australia, a semi-arid, isolated continent and a vast nation-state, in many ways parallels the history of the United States. In the 1850s and 1860s, it had gold rushes and pioneering settlers, reminiscent of our own western migration.

In World War I and World War II, it fought with the allies. Australia remained a subject of Great British until 1986, when the last ties with the British crown were dissolved.

With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.

Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned.

Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and Canada, is not recognized in Australia, Like Americans, Australians loved and possessed firearms – that is, until the ban. Freedom has been extinguished. A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen here!

Dr. Miguel A. Faria Jr. is a physician and editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

BV 11-02-2006 12:53 PM
Guns are good, people are bad.

Anthony 11-02-2006 12:53 PM
I was able to find that data from the newmax.com to an Australian source.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...+after+gun+ban

Latter part caught my eye.

Quote:
Australia must not fall into the same trap as Jamaica. In 1974, Jamaica passed draconian laws with mandatory life imprisonment even for possessing a single round of ammunition. This worked well for about two years but did nothing about the underlying social problems. By 1987, the homicide rate had risen 500% to 22.6 / 100,000, double that of the US. Professional criminals and political thugs favoured guns and the common people used machetes65.

Conclusion

If the people of Australia want to get rid of all legal guns, then they may do so, but the people will have to lose some liberties and pay about $5 billion for it and then still deal with most of the suicide and violent crime problems we have now. They should therefore think carefully about what benefit, if any, they can expect and what other services must be forgone. To repeat the NCV's words:

"Good intentions, warm feelings and trendy ideas-------are not a sufficient basis for the expenditure of public funds."

Postscript 10-9-99.

Since writing this article, the East Timor genocide crisis has erupted on our northern border. Public mass destruction of Australian guns seems even less of a good idea in the long term. If there are to be any further confiscations, the guns should not be destroyed, but should be stored by the army. While an armed civil populace is useless on a modern battlefield, it does add immensely to the cost of holding a conquered territory after the main battles are over. Australia and the East Timorese have had fine moral support from other nations, but no troops as yet. Australians should not assume that others will send troops to save us if we are invaded. We must provide our own deterrent.

Anthony 11-02-2006 12:55 PM
I was able to find that data from the newmax.com to an Australian source.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...+after+gun+ban

Latter part caught my eye.

Quote:
Australia must not fall into the same trap as Jamaica. In 1974, Jamaica passed draconian laws with mandatory life imprisonment even for possessing a single round of ammunition. This worked well for about two years but did nothing about the underlying social problems. By 1987, the homicide rate had risen 500% to 22.6 / 100,000, double that of the US. Professional criminals and political thugs favoured guns and the common people used machetes65.

Conclusion

If the people of Australia want to get rid of all legal guns, then they may do so, but the people will have to lose some liberties and pay about $5 billion for it and then still deal with most of the suicide and violent crime problems we have now. They should therefore think carefully about what benefit, if any, they can expect and what other services must be forgone. To repeat the NCV's words:

"Good intentions, warm feelings and trendy ideas-------are not a sufficient basis for the expenditure of public funds."

Postscript 10-9-99.

Since writing this article, the East Timor genocide crisis has erupted on our northern border. Public mass destruction of Australian guns seems even less of a good idea in the long term. If there are to be any further confiscations, the guns should not be destroyed, but should be stored by the army. While an armed civil populace is useless on a modern battlefield, it does add immensely to the cost of holding a conquered territory after the main battles are over. Australia and the East Timorese have had fine moral support from other nations, but no troops as yet. Australians should not assume that others will send troops to save us if we are invaded. We must provide our own deterrent.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123