PDA

View Full Version : A Little Gun Control History Lesson


Steelman16
12-17-2008, 01:11 AM
- One of my friends sent this to me. Thought it was great. Enjoy - Steelman


A Little Gun Control History Lesson




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!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

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 him of this history lesson..

With Guns............We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'.

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

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

SteelCurtain7
12-17-2008, 06:03 AM
"You'll pry this gun from my cold, dead hands."

Charlton Heston

MACH1
12-17-2008, 08:58 AM
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!


It is still true today! A big reason no ones tried to invade the US.

Hammer67
12-17-2008, 10:54 AM
Try to stay balanced.....

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

Hammer Of The GODS
12-17-2008, 11:12 AM
I am 36 and gun control will not happen in my lifetime.

The newer generations who are inexplicably liberal and are growing in number may adopt this absurd idea that taking guns from law abiding citizens is a good idea. So it could be in this countrys future.


As for now... no way.


I am now a US Marine Veteran

Try to take my guns from me........?

I become a criminal........ I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

missedgehead
12-27-2008, 07:56 PM
People like Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, Danny White, Sir Han Sir Han, and James Earl Ray are very happy indeed that the USA loves guns so much. I hope these jerks go you know where for their deeds. Especially Chapman and James Earl Ray in particular, the slimeballs.

xfl2001fan
12-27-2008, 09:10 PM
People like Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, Danny White, Sir Han Sir Han, and James Earl Ray are very happy indeed that the USA loves guns so much. I hope these jerks go you know where for their deeds. Especially Chapman and James Earl Ray in particular, the slimeballs.

Taking guns from innocent people solves nothing. Criminals will find a way to obtain them...and be that much more powerful for having them. Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the Marines. Should we disband the Marines, shut down Cherry Point because of one bad apple?

The Unibomber was Army trained...maybe we should get rid of our Military all together. While I believe those particular individuals will get what's coming to them, throwing their names up on a list of gun lovers seems pointless to me. Or at least, the point it appears you are trying to make is done so with flawed logic. While I'm not sure if this is the tone you were going for...it seems like it's at odds with the OP...

As for now... no way.
I am now a US Marine Veteran
Try to take my guns from me........?
I become a criminal........ I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

As a Naval/Army Veteran (and still counting) I absolutely respect your opinion. Unfortunately, as a currently "enrolled" Soldier...I'd have to comply...initially.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
12-28-2008, 02:44 AM
Gun control has never worked in the past, and it never will work.

Well, take that back. It worked well for the Nazi party and the Soviets to keep their civilians under their thumbs with no way to fight back.

This pretty much sums up the major flaw in gun control:

Gun control would be a law. Criminals break laws, while law abiding citizens follow them. The criminals would break the law to obtain a gun, while the law abiding citizen would follow the law and not obtain a gun. The citizen now has no form of defense against an armed attacker. Crime rates go up because there is way for a victim to fight back.

Do a little research and you will find that in the U.K., violent crime and crimes involving handguns have risen drastically since the passing of anti-firearms legislation.I don't have the exact numbers, but I did a speech on the subject in college and had mountains of statistics to support my argument.

Hammer67
12-28-2008, 07:14 AM
It's funny...if anyone has heard Jim Quinn on the morning radio in Pittsburgh, he often says Liberalism often has the reverse effect of it's stated intent. Gun control laws would be one such instance based on those statistics.

GBMelBlount
12-28-2008, 07:21 AM
Gun control has never worked in the past, and it never will work.

Well, take that back. It worked well for the Nazi party and the Soviets to keep their civilians under their thumbs with no way to fight back.

This pretty much sums up the major flaw in gun control:

Gun control would be a law. Criminals break laws, while law abiding citizens follow them. The criminals would break the law to obtain a gun, while the law abiding citizen would follow the law and not obtain a gun. The citizen now has no form of defense against an armed attacker. Crime rates go up because there is way for a victim to fight back.

Do a little research and you will find that in the U.K., violent crime and crimes involving handguns have risen drastically since the passing of anti-firearms legislation.I don't have the exact numbers, but I did a speech on the subject in college and had mountains of statistics to support my argument.

Nice post. And Hammer, I'm not sure that your link shows anything more than that the results of the Australian gun control measures are perhaps inconclusive.

GBMelBlount
12-28-2008, 07:24 AM
It's funny...if anyone has heard Jim Quinn on the morning radio in Pittsburgh, he often says Liberalism often has the reverse effect of it's stated intent. Gun control laws would be one such instance based on those statistics.

Ya, I use to listen to him years ago, and do on rare occasion now. He can be extreme at times but I agree with most of his beliefs, logic and supporting evidence. A lot of it is common sense as well imo.....at least to many conservatives.

beSteelmyheart
12-28-2008, 06:52 PM
Surrender, my ass. If it came to that, they better be prepared to tear apart my home to find anything. Gun? what gun?:laughing:
All of that aside, I'm not the kind of person who is just going to hand over something that I worked hard for & paid a good bit of money for.

Aussie_steeler
12-29-2008, 06:43 AM
Nice post. And Hammer, I'm not sure that your link shows anything more than that the results of the Australian gun control measures are perhaps inconclusive.


Here is some additional data from Australia to view for you make up your own minds regarding the effects of gun control laws down under.

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080909-Speech-notes-that-Sarah-Palin-will-never-consult.html

The USA has 14.3 times Australia’s population, 104 times our total firearm-caused deaths (30,143 in 2005 vs 289 in 2003), and 294 times Australia’s firearm homicide rate (12,352 in 2005 vs just 42 in 2005/06). In 1979, 705 people died from gunshots in Australia. Despite population growth, in 2003, this number had fallen to 289.


http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/bn/2007-08/08bn01.htm

How many offences involve firearms?
According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Recorded Crime–Victims 2006, a weapon was used in 74 per cent of attempted murders, 63 per cent of murders and 44 per cent of robberies. A knife was the most common type of weapon used in committing these offences. Over one third (34 per cent) of murder victims, 35 per cent of attempted murder victims, 22 per cent of the victims of robbery and 10 per cent of kidnapping/abduction victims were subjected to an offence involving a knife. A firearm was involved in 25 per cent of attempted murder, 17 per cent of murder and 7 per cent of robbery offences.

The latest Australian Crime: Facts and Figures 2006 from the AIC states that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continues a declining trend which began in 1969: ‘In 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44 per cent in 1968.’ The Homicide in Australia: 2005–2006 National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report points out that while the use of firearms to commit homicide had decreased over time, the use of handguns as a percentage of all firearm homicide has increased. In 1992–93, 17 per cent of firearm homicides were committed with a handgun, compared with 47 per cent in 2005–06.



The above stats show that the two countries present totally different scenarios ( and yes statistics can be made to say / mean anything)

In Australia I do not need a gun for my safety or that of my family ( and I hope it stays that way). However I am guessing that I would possibly hold a totally different view if I lived in the USA.

Just a different perspective from Down Under.

Godfather
12-29-2008, 11:53 AM
Crime stats aren't always a good example. NYC has very strict gun laws and it's one of the safest cities in America. The murder capital of the country is New Orleans, and Louisiana has very little gun control (concealed carry permits, shot the burglar law, shoot the carjacker law, etc.)

I'm very pro-Second Amendment but more guns isn't necessarily a good solution.

stlrtruck
12-29-2008, 03:09 PM
The problem with the laws in this country (USA) is that somewhere along the line it has become priority that the criminal has just as many rights as victim. While I truly believe in innocent until proven guilty, I don't understand how the victim can be turned into a criminal because some lawyer found a loophole in the system!

It reminds me of the movie LIAR LIAR, when the lady says that a burglar fell through her friend's house and the lawyer got him $5,000 and Jim Carrey's character says he would have gotten him $10,000 (or something like that).

We have the freedom to defend ourselves and the choice to either legally carry a firearm or illegally carry one. One way is the American way - the other way will get you shot!

MasterOfPuppets
12-29-2008, 03:52 PM
Gun control has never worked in the past, and it never will work.

Well, take that back. It worked well for the Nazi party and the Soviets to keep their civilians under their thumbs with no way to fight back.

This pretty much sums up the major flaw in gun control:

Gun control would be a law. Criminals break laws, while law abiding citizens follow them. The criminals would break the law to obtain a gun, while the law abiding citizen would follow the law and not obtain a gun. The citizen now has no form of defense against an armed attacker. Crime rates go up because there is way for a victim to fight back.

Do a little research and you will find that in the U.K., violent crime and crimes involving handguns have risen drastically since the passing of anti-firearms legislation.I don't have the exact numbers, but I did a speech on the subject in college and had mountains of statistics to support my argument.



Default Re: Folks, this is why we need to buy guns and ammo
Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
Handgun
Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.


Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place

David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
12-29-2008, 03:58 PM
Thanks M.O.P., I never got around to digging up my old research...

MasterOfPuppets
12-29-2008, 04:00 PM
Thanks M.O.P., I never got around to digging up my old research...
i already had it posted in another gun control thread.....

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
12-29-2008, 04:02 PM
i already had it posted in another gun control thread.....

How lazy...:coffee:

Still, thanks though :thumbsup:

MasterOfPuppets
12-29-2008, 04:22 PM
How lazy...:coffee:

Still, thanks though :thumbsup:lol...no prob.... actually the australian stats are in there too... this topic isn't exactly new....lol .:popcorn:

tony hipchest
01-09-2009, 09:13 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/Guns-3.jpg

:laughing:

Godfather
01-09-2009, 11:37 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/Guns-3.jpg

:laughing:

They need to add the Plaxico Rule to that: If you pop a cap in your own ass, you're doing it wrong.

TroysBadDawg
01-10-2009, 01:54 AM
I'll Keep my guns, freedom, and money... You keep the change.

Like Tom Selleck said on the Rosie Odonnell show, I will give up my guns when the criminals give up theirs. Otherwise they can pry my cold dead fingers from them.

Funny Good ole Rosie who is against guns wants her body guard armed with sub machine guns, not semi-auto but full auto. Difference in the classes maybe?

Godfather
01-11-2009, 09:30 PM
I'll Keep my guns, freedom, and money... You keep the change.

Like Tom Selleck said on the Rosie Odonnell show, I will give up my guns when the criminals give up theirs. Otherwise they can pry my cold dead fingers from them.

Funny Good ole Rosie who is against guns wants her body guard armed with sub machine guns, not semi-auto but full auto. Difference in the classes maybe?

Is she against guns or does she want to restrict them to trained professionals? I disagree with her either way but it makes a difference on whether she's a hypocrite.

Leftoverhard
01-12-2009, 12:32 AM
Hey, I have a good idea, let's talk about guns. Again. And our cold, dead fingers.

TroysBadDawg
01-12-2009, 06:45 AM
God Father, she is against guns as she stated in the million (1000) mom march. She said no one should have them but then she applies for permits for her body guards to have full auto to protect her and her adopted child.

She wants her cake and eats it too. (It look like she eats lots of cake also!)

Godfather
01-12-2009, 08:49 AM
God Father, she is against guns as she stated in the million (1000) mom march. She said no one should have them but then she applies for permits for her body guards to have full auto to protect her and her adopted child.

She wants her cake and eats it too. (It look like she eats lots of cake also!)

Thanks. I didn't know the specifics. I tend to ignore her :drink:

The Patriot
01-12-2009, 03:25 PM
Anti-gun control enthusiasts,

How do you prevent bad people from killing innocent people without gun control? Are incidents like Virginia Tech simply the price of freedom?

NJarhead
01-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Anti-gun control enthusiasts,

How do you prevent bad people from killing innocent people without gun control? Are incidents like Virginia Tech simply the price of freedom?

Of course not, but how would have gun control prevented that incident?

Leftoverhard
01-12-2009, 03:46 PM
Anti-gun control enthusiasts,

How do you prevent bad people from killing innocent people without gun control? Are incidents like Virginia Tech simply the price of freedom?

Questions like that tend to get ignored by this audience. I, personally, think this issue has a LOT of gray area - the problem is with "articles" like the one posted here, with a bunch of false historic information, false "stats", aimed at the "cold, dead fingers" crowd, intended to get people pumped to wrap their guns in American flags again and call it a patriotic thing - a black and white issue. And the debate falls by the wayside.

Leftoverhard
01-12-2009, 03:49 PM
Of course not, but how would have gun control prevented that incident?

At the very least, tighter restrictions on selling a firearm to a person with a history of mental illness. This is also an issue of technology (computers, databases, all communicating this information instantly) not just gun control.

Hammer67
01-12-2009, 03:52 PM
Questions like that tend to get ignored by this audience. I, personally, think this issue has a LOT of gray area - the problem is with "articles" like the one posted here, with a bunch of false historic information, false "stats", aimed at the "cold, dead fingers" crowd, intended to get people pumped to wrap their guns in American flags again and call it a patriotic thing - a black and white issue. And the debate falls by the wayside.

Actually, I think most gun owners are for some form of gun control, (i.e. can't sell guns to minors, background checks, etc.). What I think the issue that liberals and gun control fanatics ignore is that areas with strict gun control laws have not shown a decrease in violence from handguns. The fact is that most guns used in crimes are either bought underground, illegally or stolen. They circumvent the laws anyway. The law abiding gun owners, the ones we shouldn't be worried about, are the ones who generally suffer.

Hammer67
01-12-2009, 03:53 PM
At the very least, tighter restrictions on selling a firearm to a person with a history of mental illness. This is also an issue of technology (computers, databases, all communicating this information instantly) not just gun control.

That is a valid point. Every state needs to have a criminal and mental illness background check for gun ownership. No sane gun owner would deny that.

The Patriot
01-12-2009, 03:56 PM
Of course not, but how would have gun control prevented that incident?

I don't know... why does a kid need two semi-automatic handguns? I agree that people have the right to carry weapons for defense, but that maniac killed 32 people! Nobody should have that kind of power.

Hammer67
01-12-2009, 03:57 PM
I don't know... why does a kid need two semi-automatic handguns? I agree that people have the right to carry weapons for defense, but that maniac killed 32 people! Nobody should have that kind of power.

No, but he could have also driven a vehicle down a busy sidewalk and accomplished the same thing...

Too often people try to bandaid the problem and attack the wrong issues. It wasn't the gun's fault, it was his mental illness that went unchecked by his peers, family and teachers...

MasterOfPuppets
01-12-2009, 04:06 PM
That is a valid point. Every state needs to have a criminal and mental illness background check for gun ownership. No sane gun owner would deny that.aren't these laws already in place ? it just cracks me up the way these people think more laws is the end of crime....hows that war on drugs working out? other than lighten tax payers wallets, and making drug dealers even richer, what has it accomplished? are drugs off the streets? are less people using drugs now? get a grip people....the only thing it'll accomplish, is create more victims by making innocents even more vulnerable.. if you think criminals, or would be criminals won't be able to get access to an illegal gun, your just being naive. i have no connection whatsoever with the ILLEGAL drug rings, but i guarantee within one hour, i could find and purchase ,any illegal drug i want....

NJarhead
01-12-2009, 04:09 PM
I don't know... why does a kid need two semi-automatic handguns? I agree that people have the right to carry weapons for defense, but that maniac killed 32 people! Nobody should have that kind of power.

Just cuz they're illegal doesn't make them unattainable to anyone but the law abiding citizen.

No, but he could have also driven a vehicle down a busy sidewalk and accomplished the same thing...

Too often people try to bandaid the problem and attack the wrong issues. It wasn't the gun's fault, it was his mental illness that went unchecked by his peers, family and teachers...

Exactly.

Hammer67
01-12-2009, 04:20 PM
Just cuz they're illegal doesn't make them unattainable to anyone but the law abiding citizen.



Exactly.


More gun control laws remind me of the people who think video games cause people to be violent. Total nonsense. Mental illness and lack of parenting causes criminal behavior...not video games. I am pretty much a pacifist but I have played all kinds of violent games as escapist fun. That argument is a crutch that guilty parents of criminals use to excuse their poor parenting (the games/music/movies made my kid do it!!!)

Leftoverhard
01-12-2009, 04:51 PM
More gun control laws remind me of the people who think video games cause people to be violent. Total nonsense. Mental illness and lack of parenting causes criminal behavior...not video games. I am pretty much a pacifist but I have played all kinds of violent games as escapist fun. That argument is a crutch that guilty parents of criminals use to excuse their poor parenting (the games/music/movies made my kid do it!!!)

I understand what you're saying here - and I could have said the exact same thing about video games - it's the same thing for Tipper Gore's crusade against heavy metal.
The problem with gun control laws is that we live in a gun culture. This patriotic, gun owning society, this idea that we all should have the right to pack firearms to protect ourselves is out-dated. During pioneer times, during civil war, the wild west - firearms were a way of life. Now? Kids get into dads gun drawer and shoot their siblings or themselves - people go mental and mow students down at school. We live in a vastly different time, a more populated time. How do we adjust to these changes without infringing on our own rights?
The "article" that this thread is based on says that if we give up our guns, we will be exterminated by our own government. I think most intelligent people understand fear propoganda when they see it. I think it's really important to get beyond stuff like that when seriously debating this issue - and trying to come up with solutions instead the same old rhetoric.
I think we have a big problem in this country and gun crimes are just one of the symptoms. I honestly think most of these problems stem directly from our AWFUL, broken education system.

NJarhead
01-12-2009, 05:03 PM
I understand what you're saying here - and I could have said the exact same thing about video games - it's the same thing for Tipper Gore's crusade against heavy metal.
The problem with gun control laws is that we live in a gun culture. This patriotic, gun owning society, this idea that we all should have the right to pack firearms to protect ourselves is out-dated. During pioneer times, during civil war, the wild west - firearms were a way of life. Now? Kids get into dads gun drawer and shoot their siblings or themselves - people go mental and mow students down at school. We live in a vastly different time, a more populated time. How do we adjust to these changes without infringing on our own rights?
The "article" that this thread is based on says that if we give up our guns, we will be exterminated by our own government. I think most intelligent people understand fear propoganda when they see it. I think it's really important to get beyond stuff like that when seriously debating this issue - and trying to come up with solutions instead the same old rhetoric.
I think we have a big problem in this country and gun crimes are just one of the symptoms. I honestly think most of these problems stem directly from our AWFUL, broken education system.


I disagree. There are still home break ins, car jackings, gangs and illegal guns on the streets. Worry about the courts that let criminals back out of jail, and shady dealers that help launder guns for the streets. Laws have no effect on anyone but we who abide by them. Laws.....last I checked it's illegal to stab someone, yet everyday people are still stabbed. Is it the fault of the knife? Should we outlaw them? No, it's the criminal mind. Don't create laws, create better consequences for breaking the one's we already have.

You don't like guns? Fine, don't own one. Just leave me and my law abiding ass the hell alone.

Leftoverhard
01-12-2009, 07:01 PM
There are still home break ins, car jackings, gangs and illegal guns on the streets.

You don't like guns? Fine, don't own one. Just leave me and my law abiding ass the hell alone.

1. Where do illegal guns come from?

2. Did I say I don't like guns?

3. Why so angry?

Preacher
01-12-2009, 08:13 PM
Here is my take...

1. Video games: The answer is not as black and white as it is made out to be here. The question isn't whether a person who plays a video game instantly picks up a gun and goes shooting people. It is the question of desensitization. It is also a question of training quick reflexes. When you see a threat, react. If there wasn't a link, then police forces wouldn't use larger mock-up versions (basicly, videos and fake guns) to train. So the video games do open the door. However, 99 percent of the people have the ability to discern between video game and reality. As a result, they do not follow what is seen. They are also able to deal with the desensitization and in many cases, re-sensitize themselves through human interaction.

It is false in my opinion to blame video games for what happens. However, It is also false to complete dismiss the impact. There are some, for whom these games do altar the way they view the world. In that sense, the games act as a catalyst for latent issues already in existence.

2. Outdated arguments of gun ownership: I do not think that owning a gun to protect yourself is an outdated argument. For instance, if you are a black man or woman living in many places of the south today, it is very wise to own a gun to protect yourself from certain individuals and organizations which still exist in those areas.

In truth, gun owners use their guns to stop 1.9 MILLION crimes A YEAR. That statistic comes from Dr. Kleck, who did the survey. He is a professor of criminal justice in Florida and a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and a democrat. He has never supported "pro gun" causes such as the NRA. Yet, HIS numbers are 1.9 mill a year. That alone discounts the argument that guns for protection is outdated. (http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm)

However, there are other arguments.

A. One of the biggest mistakes that has been repeated by nations the world over was thinking that they had finished fighting wars on their land. For us to make that same mistake is assinine with the testimony of history. It is documented that the reason Japan did not follow up Pearl Harbor with an invasion of the US mainland was a fear of American gun ownership.

B. L.A. Riots. During the Rodney King riots, an interesting thing happened. Certain business were left alone while others were burned to the ground. Why were those businesses left standing? The Korean merchants had banded together, brandished their firearms, and protected their stores while the others burnt to the ground.

NJarhead
01-12-2009, 08:26 PM
1. Where do illegal guns come from?

2. Did I say I don't like guns?

3. Why so angry?

1). Where do illegal guns come from? In many cases they come from shady gun dealers. In other words, criminals.

2). You take the stance of someone who doesn't like guns. What else am I to think?

3). Don't mean to sound angry. This is just an arguement that I feel very strongly about. I tend to get fired up when I hear the same weak arguments for yet another gun law.

Did you know that even most cops are against gun laws? They have thier own gun rights organizations and in Florida have even pushed for citizen carry permits.

MasterOfPuppets
01-12-2009, 09:37 PM
vehicles are used for homocidal crimes....drinking and driving....drive by shootings,,,,maybe we should have auto control laws too....:toofunny:

Leftoverhard
01-12-2009, 11:21 PM
maybe we should have auto control laws too....:toofunny:

we do....

MACH1
01-12-2009, 11:36 PM
vehicles are used for homocidal crimes....drinking and driving....drive by shootings,,,,maybe we should have auto control laws too....:toofunny:

How bout knife control laws. Nothing sharper than a wood dowel. But then again they could turn around and beat you to death with a wood stick. Maybe those need controlled too.

Preacher
01-12-2009, 11:44 PM
How bout knife control laws. Nothing sharper than a wood dowel. But then again they could turn around and beat you to death with a wood stick. Maybe those need controlled too.

Sadly, there is a such a movement in England.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
01-13-2009, 01:03 AM
I don't see how the "gun control" crowd has a leg to stand on. It has never worked anywhere in the world. Why would we be any different?

Hammer67
01-13-2009, 07:15 AM
I understand what you're saying here - and I could have said the exact same thing about video games - it's the same thing for Tipper Gore's crusade against heavy metal.
The problem with gun control laws is that we live in a gun culture. This patriotic, gun owning society, this idea that we all should have the right to pack firearms to protect ourselves is out-dated. During pioneer times, during civil war, the wild west - firearms were a way of life. Now? Kids get into dads gun drawer and shoot their siblings or themselves - people go mental and mow students down at school. We live in a vastly different time, a more populated time. How do we adjust to these changes without infringing on our own rights?
The "article" that this thread is based on says that if we give up our guns, we will be exterminated by our own government. I think most intelligent people understand fear propoganda when they see it. I think it's really important to get beyond stuff like that when seriously debating this issue - and trying to come up with solutions instead the same old rhetoric.
I think we have a big problem in this country and gun crimes are just one of the symptoms. I honestly think most of these problems stem directly from our AWFUL, broken education system.


I agree with you to a point. There are some crazy NRA nut jobs who make most of the law abiding gun owners look bad. But, that doesn't mean gun control laws make much sense. I mean, if they actually were shown to solve crime problems, then I would probably change my mind...but right now, the argument for more laws is just unproven theory. And as someone who is wary of more government interference, i say no way.

And, funny we should mention this as there were two news stories on the local Detroit news this week...one an elderly woman pulled a gun on an intruder in her home and held him at gunpoint until the cops got to her house! Another was a woman with a handgun in her purse...she shot a mugger.

This is why we carry weapons. For the issue with kids getting to their parents guns, then the parents should be prosecuted for allowing access or not locking them up properly.

Hammer67
01-13-2009, 07:20 AM
Here is my take...

1. Video games: The answer is not as black and white as it is made out to be here. The question isn't whether a person who plays a video game instantly picks up a gun and goes shooting people. It is the question of desensitization. It is also a question of training quick reflexes. When you see a threat, react. If there wasn't a link, then police forces wouldn't use larger mock-up versions (basicly, videos and fake guns) to train. So the video games do open the door. However, 99 percent of the people have the ability to discern between video game and reality. As a result, they do not follow what is seen. They are also able to deal with the desensitization and in many cases, re-sensitize themselves through human interaction.

It is false in my opinion to blame video games for what happens. However, It is also false to complete dismiss the impact. There are some, for whom these games do altar the way they view the world. In that sense, the games act as a catalyst for latent issues already in existence.


The problem here is that too often, parents, the media and the government are too quick to blame these types of things instead of looking into the root cause...mental illness or parenting. Take that absolutely silly Judas Priest trial where the parents tried to blame the band for their kids suicide. Absolutely ridiculous money grab at the expense of their personal tragedy. They should look inward and wonder what happened to their child during his upbringing or why they didn't seek professional help for him. We can't use that as a catalyst to enact laws to ban all heavy metal music....there will always be a few nut jobs that can't handle life. I just don't buy the video game argument. If you want to talk about reflex training for the military and police, fine...I can get that, but not desensitization...

SteelersLUFC
01-25-2009, 10:12 AM
"You'll pry this gun from my cold, dead hands."

Charlton Heston

well im sure someone did

IronFan
01-26-2009, 07:33 AM
I've always thought that gun control compared very well to old school racism. It's an archaic and assuming line of thought (usually handed down within a family) that defies common sense and evidence. It is an outdated line of thought that relies on emotinal wants rather than common sense needs. I think most people that are willing to think about it objectively have little trouble seeing it for what it is; a measure that sounds good on paper but in practice offers only negatives to the citizenry subjected to it.

Some gun-control is needed I think, but only on the fringes. Background checks for instance. But most gun control is unproductive (the assault weapon ban) and still some is dangerous (gun free zones like schools).

Using crime statistics to build a case for or against is building your castle on sand. One, statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say but even more to the point it is an uncontrolled study. There are too many other variables to rely on the data. I carry a firearm with me every day for purely selfish reasons. To protect myself and my loves ones. The effect my being allowed to do so legally is secondary and not a major concern of mine. Regardless of the current interpretation of the constitution I do so because I feel a responsibility to protect my family. I doubt any laws passed would change my choices.

Debating the second ammendment and gun control has really gotten old for me. I think that people who want to understand it, do. And those who don't, don't. It is what it is.

xfl2001fan
01-26-2009, 08:15 AM
Gun Control (IMO) is showing a proper trigger-squeeze.

Leftoverhard
01-26-2009, 10:58 AM
I've always thought that gun control compared very well to old school racism. It's an archaic and assuming line of thought (usually handed down within a family) that defies common sense and evidence. It is an outdated line of thought that relies on emotinal wants rather than common sense needs. I think most people that are willing to think about it objectively have little trouble seeing it for what it is; a measure that sounds good on paper but in practice offers only negatives to the citizenry subjected to it.

Hmm - your point would make more sense if you were talking about the gun rights crowd. I really tried to see your angle and just I don't get it.

To me, carrying a gun around daily to protect your family seems more like an emotional reaction rather than a common sense need. I personally like firearms a lot - but I think most people don't have the brain function to own them responsibly; for those gun owners - the weapon is purely a power trip - and it's those ideals that get under my skin - especially when people wrap their personal argument in the American flag.

stlrtruck
01-26-2009, 11:16 AM
Gun Control (IMO) is showing a proper trigger-squeeze.

And a good clean line of sight!!

xfl2001fan
01-26-2009, 11:19 AM
I understand where you're coming from Leftover...however, there will always be idiots with guns. Whether they get them illegally, join the miitary or do things the right way.

I can understand not allowing fully-automatic guns. I have no beef whatsoever with that.

However, I can't see taking guns away from responsible citizens as an answer to anything. You cripple a nation that way.

I have the right to bear arms and will exercise that right. For me, and I'm sure many others as well, it doesn't become a "power trip" until you try to take that power away. It's a peace of mind first and foremost.

IronFan
01-26-2009, 11:59 AM
I really tried to see your angle and just I don't get it.
Like I said, those that want to understand it most likely already do. Those that don't do so by choice. There's too much information out there to believe otherwise.

To me, carrying a gun around daily to protect your family seems more like an emotional reaction rather than a common sense need.
I don't know. Do you think wearing a seatbelt is an emotional reaction rather than a logical or common sense reaction? I don't plan on needing my seatbelt when I leave the house any more than I plan on needing my firearm. If I really thought I would need either I would hope to make the smart decision and not leave the house at all.

I personally like firearms a lot - but I think most people don't have the brain function to own them responsibly; for those gun owners - the weapon is purely a power trip - and it's those ideals that get under my skin - especially when people wrap their personal argument in the American flag
A statement like “most people” would make me think that you have some statistical data that suggests a high percentage of people who own firearms legally have proven to be a danger to society (themselves or others around them).

Reading the newspaper everyday and knowing how many people in Pennsylvania own and carry firearms each day, I would expect to see more accidental discharge stories and more public shootings and mishaps involving vigilantes on a powertrip.

I don't see that when I open my paper each morning and so I have no choice currently but to disregard the suggestion that most people cannot own/carry a firearm responsibly. To the contrary I think we as a people have proven to be very adept at responsible ownership.

The Patriot
01-26-2009, 07:12 PM
The whole point of having 2nd Amdt rights isn't to protect us from criminals or foreign invaders, but to give us the means to overthrow our own government, thus keeping them honest.
Funny then, that so many 2nd Amendment proponents think it's improper to dissent and 2nd Amendment detractors are so quick to protest. :noidea:
/ yay Bill of Rights
// trust my guns more than I trust Washington

The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when armies would line up 25yds away from each other and take turns firing volleys so that, every so often, somebody would get hit.

The founding fathers were not Gods! They could not foresee the devastating reality of modern weaponry. A trained veteran soldier could fire a musket up to three times in a minute. Compare that to the 200 rounds fired a minute by an untrained psycho VA Tech English major. The lesson of the modern world is that our ability to develop technology, does not always give us the right to use it.

If the United States' foreign policy was accordant to its armed citizenry policy, then it would allow any foreign dictator to develop its own weapons of mass destruction. Of course, The US has restrictions because the US cannot punish anybody until they have pressed the button, just like we cannot stop the psycho maniac until he has climbed the bell tower.

NJarhead
01-26-2009, 07:19 PM
Please don't take me seriously. I just want attention.

Oh, Okay. Deal. :chuckle:

The Patriot
01-26-2009, 07:44 PM
The Founding fathers also did not forsee the invention of 24 hour news cycles or the Internet. Freedom of speech/ press still applies. The lesson is that while the details may change, the principles still hold.

That is a weak argument that I see often around this subject. Technology does not invalidate rights. The *only* act that invalidates a right is a Constitutional amendment.
Until such time as the 2nd Amdt is repealed, we have a right to be armed to a level commensurate with the infantry, and the obligation to maintain proficiency with them.

Well, I still strongly believe that every snot-nosed punk that turns 18 does not automatically have the right to carry a firearm. That's not the kind of neighborhood I want my kids to grow up in.

NJarhead
01-26-2009, 07:49 PM
Well, I still strongly believe that every snot-nosed punk that turns 18 does not automatically have the right to carry a firearm. That's not the kind of neighborhood I want my kids to grow up in.

Some of them should have to earn freedom of speech and freedom of expression too, but that just "ain't" the case.

I don't believe there are too many 18 y/o's practicing their right to own a firearm* who haven't been brought up on them and taught respect for them.

*by this, I mean legally practicing their rights. This obviously does not include gang-bangers with illegal guns.

GBMelBlount
01-26-2009, 09:10 PM
The whole point of having 2nd Amdt rights isn't to protect us from criminals or foreign invaders, but to give us the means to overthrow our own government, thus keeping them honest.

Funny then, that so many 2nd Amendment proponents think it's improper to dissent and 2nd Amendment detractors are so quick to protest. :noidea:

/ yay Bill of Rights

// trust my guns more than I trust Washington

/// PLEASE don't tell me you are referring to our previous discussion about your quote..... :chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
01-26-2009, 09:14 PM
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



As long as no one EVER tries to change the original Bill of Rights I'm cool. I truly believe that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize and plan, that the 2nd rule/Bill is in place to protect the 1st.

DJfan
01-26-2009, 09:27 PM
I am a proud member of the "Cold fingers" club, so please wrap me in the American Flag!

This will be the make or break issue of the liberals. Pelosi would die to have guns taken from law abiding citizens.

Not me. Not now. Not later.

IronFan
01-27-2009, 07:45 AM
Well, I still strongly believe that every snot-nosed punk that turns 18 does not automatically have the right to carry a firearm. That's not the kind of neighborhood I want my kids to grow up in.
I'm the opposite. Knowing that the criminal element will be armed I hope that citizens in my neighborhood are armed as well. My kids are safer that way.