• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

A Little Gun History

Posted by on Dec. 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM
  • 12 Replies
1 mom liked this



A LITTLE GUN 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.
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!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
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!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
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.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people
by on Dec. 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
_Kissy_
by on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Gun Control in Australia

Bookmark and Share

Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?

A: This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

FULL QUESTION

Is this true??

A little Gun History Lesson

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

FULL ANSWER

The e-mail says that "[i]t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, it’s been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declinedfrom 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Homicides in Australia

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument we’ve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.

The claims about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a "small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics" signifying little.

Historical Humbug

The e-mail’s historical information is not much better. One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II "the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!" In fact, according to the U.S. Army’s Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests.

American Military History, p. 165: Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma.

Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd.

(Note: The author alludes to a belief, widely held by supporters of gun rights, that Japan’s WW II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his country’s leaders against invading the U.S., supposedly saying "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." This alleged quote appears literally thousands of times in various Internet postings. So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this. We invite any of our readers who can validate this remark to send us a citation that we can check out. Until then we must classify this alleged quote as unverified and probably a fabrication.)

Update, May 11: We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans (1993)" and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (1981)." He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."

In an exchange of e-mails he said:

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

As for the other claims, we talked to Dr. Robert Spitzer, a political science professor and the author of"The Politics of Gun Control" and two other books on gun control legislation. Spitzer called the e-mail "a cartoonish view of the complex events" regarding the rise of Nazi Germany, the Cambodian mass killings and the other events that the anonymous author attributes to gun laws. "The people who write these things don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war," Spitzer told us.

We have no doubt that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot tried to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But that doesn’t mean that gun control necessarily leads to totalitarian dictatorships. This reasoning is a classic example of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" – "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens after another does not mean that there’s any causation involved. And that rule would apply to anyone making an argument completely counter to that of our e-mail author, as well. Simply saying "Australian law reform reduced gun fatalities," if all you know is that deaths dropped after 1996, would be post hoc ergo propter hoc, too.

In summary, this author’s claims are simplistic, fallacious and unsupported by historical or current evidence.

143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:17 PM
5 moms liked this

 Kissy, you can post all you want from where ever you want to support your point of view. As did the OP. If a person, whether they be unbalanced or on parole or ex-con want a gun, they're not going to acquire it by legal means. The only way one could even FATHOM AN ATTEMPT at regulating guns would be to crawl into the mind of the sick, twisted and demented BEFORE they committed a crime. If that could have ever been acclomplished we wouldn't be putting the wrong people in jail, and they'd have I.D.'d all murderers.

I said this in another thread, and I'll repost it here:

As much as we all would love to prevent something like this from ever happening again, the sad part about it that we can't. We can ban assault rifles, we can ban certain types of ammo. But in the end, it's the mind of a killer that (unfortunately) adjusts to the limits set by society.

They modify guns. Make their own ammo. "Gerry-rig" pistols, rifles, bullets.

The only people that will be limited by gun laws, however strict and restrictive they may become, are the law abiding citizens that register their guns, lock them up, apply and wait whatever their state mandates is appropriate waiting time.

You cannot govern common sense and you cannot put parameters on those that have no regard for them.

Raintree
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:21 PM

The idea that an arsenal of semi-automatics in the hands of one crazy guy or gal will stop the government from coming after them is HILARIOUS. I point you to Waco. I point you to crazy guy making terroristic threats towards a school and his wife in Indiana this week, now behind bars.

And the thing is? This is a grown-up discussion on the effects of limiting the number of shots a person can get off in a certain amount of time without having to reload. Not the total taking away of every gun.

One of the reasons the shooter who several of you agree with- David Adkisson- wasn't able to continue and was dog-piled and stopped by people without guns was that he had to reload.

Reloading saves lives.

Raintree
by Gold Member on Dec. 18, 2012 at 11:22 PM

This is always the argument:

The criminals can't be stopped! THen... why do we outlaw crack cocaine and heroin?

And then there is the fact that most gun violence- most, most- is carried out with legally obtained guns. Woo.

Quoting 143myboys9496:

 Kissy, you can post all you want from where ever you want to support your point of view. As did the OP. If a person, whether they be unbalanced or on parole or ex-con want a gun, they're not going to acquire it by legal means. The only way one could even FATHOM AN ATTEMPT at regulating guns would be to crawl into the mind of the sick, twisted and demented BEFORE they committed a crime. If that could have ever been acclomplished we wouldn't be putting the wrong people in jail, and they'd have I.D.'d all murderers.

I said this in another thread, and I'll repost it here:

As much as we all would love to prevent something like this from ever happening again, the sad part about it that we can't. We can ban assault rifles, we can ban certain types of ammo. But in the end, it's the mind of a killer that (unfortunately) adjusts to the limits set by society.

They modify guns. Make their own ammo. "Gerry-rig" pistols, rifles, bullets.

The only people that will be limited by gun laws, however strict and restrictive they may become, are the law abiding citizens that register their guns, lock them up, apply and wait whatever their state mandates is appropriate waiting time.

You cannot govern common sense and you cannot put parameters on those that have no regard for them.


Ednarooni160
by on Dec. 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM

BUMP!

_Kissy_
by on Dec. 19, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Jambo4
by Platinum Member on Dec. 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM
4 moms liked this

Jambo4
by Platinum Member on Dec. 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM
5 moms liked this

Ednarooni160
by on Dec. 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM
2 moms liked this


Quoting Jambo4:

Thank you for this..puts things in "perspective".

PeeperSqueak
by on Dec. 19, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Exactly !

Quoting Jambo4:


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)