Gun Control - A History Lesson
 

Gun History
Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.
Something to think about...

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 n ow 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 historica l 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'.

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

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

Anyone from Austrailia care to back this story up? I found it very interesting.

My guns and I love you :)

thus the saying "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers"

I was just reading an article in some gun magazine that was laying on my parents coffee table. The article was discussing Australia's adoption of the gun laws you mentioned. The program cost the Australian Government around 500 million bucks. As you mentioned, since the implementation, gun relates crimes HAVE NOT GONE DOWN.

Apparently the criminals don't pay attention to gun laws either. Go figure.

Interesting post, Sunny...

xoxo

While I generally oppose any motion that puts any sort of limitation on the second amendment to the U.S. constitution (I honestly believe that if a U.S. citizen wants to carry a rocket-launcher around with him, there should be systems in place that allow him to legally do so), I can't say I agree with the statement above.

Just as it's not guns that kill people (it's people that kill people), it's not laws that exterminate defenseless people.

That bit kinda mars the whole statement's credibility.

:2 cents:

Hot and smart . . . a great combo.

Very interesting read babe, I think I might steel it and post it in my forums... No worries I'll give you all the credit for it ;-)

A girl on my wavelenght, nice post Sunny. It's like great historian Jordan Maxwell always said "dont EVER give up your firearms."

In Sweden we arent allowed to have guns, I am going to research that now when I come to think about it.

Sunny, you never disappoint. Great post sweets...

Agreed. The Polish army had guns and they got exterminated by the Germans as well.

This is a propoganda piece from an organization like the NRA. It has no credibility.

If you want to discuss gun control fine, but come to the discussion with facts, not innuendo and propoganda.

I love it when you get beauty and brains in the same package.

Here's a bit about it on snopes. Doesn't come out and say it's bogus, but tries to shed more light on it.

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

edit: I like guns BTW and own many of them.

nonsense.

defenseless people when attacked lose 100% of the time. People who can defend themselves don't lose so often. end of story.

There's no need for me to be disarmed because YOU don't understand the consequences

That's what liberals always say when confronted with the facts.

You're not one of those are you?

Great post Sunny ? and Dawn loves your new FHGs :thumbsup

Learn to copy and paste and you could have brains too.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...gun+control%2e

As for the beauty part...You already have that. :Graucho

its not what she cut and pasted, its her agreement with it.

Well in that case:

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...+was+the+devil

Jesus Was Black, Ronald Reagan Was The Devil, And the government is lying to you about 9/11.


The Boondocks fucking rules! :thumbsup

guns suck ass

The point of the argument is to say that individuals who are on the wrong side of the law will always have guns. If law abiding citizens are forced to be in a defensless situation then the unlawful will always win and in many cases take advantage of the situation.

While I am opposed to excessive gun control, and grateful I currently live in a country where firearms are legal, I don't see armed citizens as much of a solution in the historical examples quoted above where a corrupt government is hell bent on wiping out whole sections of its own citizens.

It might have reduced the numbers killed slightly or slowed down the killing but not everyone can or will flee to the hills and be a rebel or go out in a blaze of glory when woken up at 3AM by six soldiers with AKs pointing at them. :2 cents:

Ronald was the Anti-Christ, not the devil. Big difference.

500 million is a bargain compared to what it's costing Canada :(

They ever pass that shit here I will glady give up all the firearms that are legally registered to my name... Heh... Which aren't many...

"Nope, sorry sir I can't give you my guns... sold 'em all at the gun show last year..."

Haha. No shit. Can't wait for them to ditch the gun registry completely. What a joke that turned out to be.

Almost all of that stuff about Australia is skewed or fake. Australians do not have a right in their constitution to own firearms and most do not own guns period. Only certain groups were privy to owning handguns (occupational jobs requiring weapons, sporting groups, hunters, collectors, etc.). Furthermore, not all guns were not banned. It was mainly semi automatic weapons and pump action ones that were banned.

The homicide rate in Australia has decreased after the 1997 'ban', the ban did not make the homicide rate did NOT increase.

In Victoria (4.5 million + population) homicides went up from 7 in 96' to 19 in 97. This is a 171% increase, not 300%, but still this doesn't mean shit. If you look at the overall homicide rate in Australia and just don't cherry pick shit, the homicide rate has went down since the ban.

Armed robberies involving firearms have dropped from around 24% in 1997 (before the ban) to under 12% today.

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


Regardless, I believe that all citizens in every country should have the right to own shotguns and/or rifles. As for assault weaponry and handguns, I don't see the point.

Gun laws were not brought in to lower crime. The only intention was so that people like Martin Bryant could not easily kill over 30 people using a semi-automatic assault weapons.

Here's a question. How many spree killings have Australia had since Martin Bryant?

How many school shootings have there been in the US since Columbine?

Also, read the snopes article on the subject. It's very informative. There are so few homicides in Australia that even the smallest fluctuation looks statistically significant. For example. Say for arguements sake we had 1 homicide last year and this year we had 2. You could say that's an increase of 100%, which sounds very dramatic. Or you could just say there was one more death than the previous year.

But it's all moot anyways.

The gun laws were not brought in for that reason. Simple as that. We haven't had another Columbine. We won't have another Columbine.

That it one hugely slanted argument, hell it's not even an argument... it's twisting facts to justify one's belief.

i can agree with this but there is a reason why guns are so widely abused in the US moreso than any other country. though in the cases mentioned even if citizens had guns, they are still little help to the firepower the military has.

The gun laws were in place during Columbine and there have been several other school shootings in the US.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Yes but it's a gross oversimplification of a much more complex issue.

It's like saying cutting taxes boosts economic growth and the tax cuts pay for themselves.
When cutting taxes from 90% to 45% that is true, but when cutting them from 39% to 35% it isn't true, as has been demonstrated by the most recent tax cuts.

Let me ask all of you gun fans this. Do you think any American citizen should be allowed to have a nuclear or chemical weapon if they choose to? Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right for you to have an Abrams tank or Tomahawk missiles?

If your answer to those question is no, then you do believe in some form of arms control, we just disagree about the degree of that control.

hes talking about the australian gun laws.

But according this original post your govt is about to start rounding up people and killing them....

oh wait the part above was truly unrelated propaganda.

Very good read while waiting for stats to load :D

Ooops - sorry. :anon

Are you serious? Criminals or someone that wants to pull something like Columbine off WILL find a way. I'm not a fan of guns at all, but no gun laws are going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. I just don't see the "boys in the hood" handing over their weapons because it's illegal to have them.

It's only a matter of time before something of the magnitude of Columbine...gun laws or not.

yeah , its like 2 billion by now:mad:

nope, but you sure are more likely to have another holocust:winkwink:

Yet we have not had a spree killing since 1996. How many are there in the US each year? People who are against gun laws will twist and distort facts and do everything they can to take a statistic out of context to further their point. Australia experienced one of the worst spree killings the world has ever seen and it acted quickly to make it harder for it to happen again.

Criminals are not the ones doing spree killings. It's people who are not sound of mind. Personally, I'd rather some criminal be in possession of guns than some fucked up lunatic who decides one day to go out and off 30 odd innocent people.

incorrect. they worked both times. look it up

when facts don't work, the ridiculous won't either.:winkwink:

if you want good history and a good story on this subject read the Book "Unintended Consequences" By John F Ross he is a good friend of mine and he wrote THE definitive book on the topic, it covers the points Sunny made and MANY MANY more.

yeah, well, muskets and horses didn't really compare to machine guns and panzer tanks.

I have and they didn't. Get your stats from somewhere other than the heritage foundation.
They "may" have had a marginal effect on the economy, but they damn sure didn't pay for themselves.
Or did you not notice what the national debt was when Reagan took office vs what it was when he left? Same thing for your boy Dubya.


As for calling my question ridiculous, that just proves that you have no counter argument. It really pisses you off when a liberal like me actually makes sense doesn't it?

Sorry man, I thought you were IN and referring TO the US.

Even then though, I don't see anywhere being immune to a killing spree. Gun laws may make it harder, as you say, but to say definitively it WON'T happen again just isn't true imo.

Hey, my first EVER double post! Cool. ;)

Perhaps. But why make it easier? The proof is in the pudding. We had one major spree killing in Australia. Gun laws were implemented very quickly afterwards and we haven't had another since. There's a statistic worth talking about.

Seeing as we're all being facetious. :winkwink:

When did you have one previous to that?

i know those stats were crap when it showed 13m jewish deads
whereas all sources i remember said approx 6m
i just double checked online
all around 6m give or take

nra crap