PDA

View Full Version : "A LITTLE GUN HISTORY" Is this true?


avidone
12-31-2007, 3:45 PM
I got an email today and I was wondering if anyone could comment on the accuracy of the content:

Begin quote....

"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.
------------------------------
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:

List of 7 items:
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 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 anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.
People ask me why I carry a 45 cal. My answer
"Because they don't make a 46 cal.

End quote.

KUJO
12-31-2007, 3:53 PM
I got an email today and I was wondering if anyone could comment on the accuracy of the content:
------------------------------
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.


I dont think this is accurate. Hitler was strongly anti-gun, but I would have to say that 13 million is a little high. But you know that who ever wins the war gets to write how it went, or how they want the sheeple to think it went.



I do agree with the over all theme of the post though. If or when our gun rights are taken away it will be the start of some very bad times. Like the quote says "If they outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns"

M. Sage
12-31-2007, 3:56 PM
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

Admiral Yamamoto advised against attempting an invasion of the mainland US because "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Fjold
12-31-2007, 5:44 PM
Australia's buy back on guns started in 1998

metalhead357
12-31-2007, 5:55 PM
This was a segement on "Paul Harvey on Gun control...Now for the rest of the story"

IS it true?
For the most part yes.

wilit
12-31-2007, 7:10 PM
http://www.wilit.com/web/warsawuprising.jpg

Faced with deportation, the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto fought back and held at bay Waffen SS troops for nearly a month.

Rust
12-31-2007, 9:34 PM
I think 13 million is a reasonable number. Hitler was having anyone he didn't like shipped of. The 6 million Jews is the most publicized but he was also killing Blacks, Gypsy's, physical and mental handicaps, and political opposition. I've been to Auschwitz and some of the other camps. I've always been a believer that the gun is the modern "right arm of freedom" but seeing those places moved me toward the "cold dead hands" frame of mind.

mblat
12-31-2007, 9:52 PM
"after that, therefore because of that"

It is logical fallacy, you know? :rolleyes:

Case and point - Japanese-Americans simply went to concentration camps regardless of the fact that there was no gun control to speak of in 1941.
It was clearly unconstitutional and illegal order. How many of us willing to bet that if war didn't go our way those people would be allowed to leave camps alive?
So fact that your average Mr. Miyagi could stop by Sears and walk out with whatever was rifle de jure back then and nice SW revolver and bunch of ammo didn't stop government from sending him to camp and him simply complying with the order......

It is more in history of genocide than simply lack of guns....

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

And also that where was no way they could keep supply lines safe before they defeated American fleet - and they never accomplished that, didn't they?

People I am all for guns, but this arguments that are no stronger then Brady Bunch arguments and as easily defeated. I wouldn't concentrate on them....

hawk81
12-31-2007, 11:24 PM
True.

bunni
12-31-2007, 11:33 PM
I've got to agree with mblat - this is FUD.

Why don't we list all the countries with gun control laws and no genocide.

Scarecrow Repair
01-01-2008, 8:05 AM
The Japanese invasion of the US is the easiest to dispose of -- they barely had the transport capacity to invade nearby SE Asia, and that was at the expense of crippling the civilian economy. They didn't have enough transport capacity to mount even a small raid-and-leave expedition on Hawaii, let alone a full invasion to there or the US Pacific coast. They couldn't have done it even if they had devoted their entire transport capacity to the task.

As for the Jews, no one was expecting the death camps, only the usual pogrom. In fact, it wasn't until January 1942, after they declared war on the US, that they decided on the final solution. If the Jews had shot back before the war started, or especially during the war, they would have lost all sympathy, both locally and worldwide, and justified harsher retribution sooner.

The Soviet Union started gun control in 1929, 12 years after the revolution? I think that was a little late to start worrying about reversing the revolution.

China 1935? Criminy, they had been at war with Japan for 4 years already, and the communists and nationalists had been battling each other longer than that. I doubt gun control had much effect at all by then -- join the army for free and get guns from the government.

Uganda in 1970, and all it mentions is 300K Christians? That was Idi Amin's time, and he killed a lot more people than that. In the wider field of African massacres and genocides, 300K is small potatoes.

I don't know much about the others, but judging from these alone, I'd say it's just carefully selected numbers and otherwise meaningless.

metalhead357
01-01-2008, 1:17 PM
I've got to agree with mblat - this is FUD.

Why don't we list all the countries with gun control laws and no genocide.


As said.....this posting was originally AIRED OVER THE RADIO from Paul Harvey's "Now for the rest of the story" and IIRC was circulated shortly thereafter in print form after the airing. Also IIRC this was circa 1994...just about the time everyone was arguing about the Federal AWB. It appeared THEN as a counterpoint to alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the less than honest "stats" being thrown about by the gun grabbers of HCI, Clintons, Schumer, and Feinstein.

In arguing AGAINST something (Gun control) one aint likely to argue for the other side....so I dont know WTH he'd of argued/provided stats for countries with gun control and no genocide.

M. Sage
01-01-2008, 1:21 PM
And also that where was no way they could keep supply lines safe before they defeated American fleet - and they never accomplished that, didn't they?

No, but after Pearl Harbor, they sure thought they had. Hell, we thought they had, too. Nobody had any idea how powerful the aircraft carrier would turn out to be.

Scarecrow Repair
01-01-2008, 2:15 PM
No, but after Pearl Harbor, they sure thought they had. Hell, we thought they had, too. Nobody had any idea how powerful the aircraft carrier would turn out to be.

It has nothing to do with aircraft carriers, only transports -- cargo ships and troop ships. But carriers are an interesting question too.

They attacked Pearl Harbor with six carriers and lost, I believe, somewhere between 5 and 10% of their planes. This was for only two raids, the first one a surprise.

Imagine if they had tried to provide air support for an invasion, where you not only have to stick around and launch strikes all day long, for many many days if not weeks, but you also have to keep a lot of planes around for (1) self-defense, (2) scouting and patrol to not be caught unawares by enemy ships and planes, and (3) attacking whatever enemy ships and planes you might find.

In other words, there was simply no way the Japanese could have mounted a real invasion of Hawaii or the west coast, and they knew it. Remember there was no naive civilian leadership to educate on that.

Now to the transports. Japan had 6 million tons of transport capacity before the war, which was roughly what the civilian economy needed to stay at its prewar level. We are talking basic food, energy, raw materials, manufactured goods, etc. This does not count military supplies or military transport. You could certainly shrink that some and have civilians tighten their belts, but their civilian economy was not at all advanced to start with, so there wasn't much luxury to trim.

When they began the war against SE asia (Indochina, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, etc), the military took over, I think, 2 million tons just for the invasion transports. If this had been a one shot deal, with all that capacity returned to civlian purposes within a few months, that might not have hobbled their economy too much, but it wasn't -- they kept those transports for resupply and in fact gobbled up more and more of it as they took more conquests under their belt. They also no longer had foreign transport capacity to help them -- once the war started, they were strictly on their own.

Those territories were in reasonable proximity to Japan. Hawaii and the west coast were two to three times as far away. Doubling the distance means you need twice the resupply transports. They simply did not have enough ships.

Plus, their troop transports could be really crowded compared to US troop transports because they were only going relatively short distances. They could not have maintained that same packing for twice or triple the distance and have the troops fit for fighting; no exercise, no training, for a month or more, would make them literally unfit for duty.

If they had been dumb enough to try an invasion, (1) it would have failed out of the gate due to unfit troops and lack of air coverage, and (2) it would have been the end of the war just as it got started.

This is not some theoretical exercise in number crunching. This is real world transport capacity which they simply did not have.

mblat
01-01-2008, 7:16 PM
No, but after Pearl Harbor, they sure thought they had. Hell, we thought they had, too. Nobody had any idea how powerful the aircraft carrier would turn out to be.

Actually, no. Perl Harbor proved that heavy battleships no longer relevant and air-craft carriers all the rage. But they didn't destroy the carriers, didn't they? So while Japanese navy had an advantage after Perl Harbor it certainly was never even close to control Pacific Ocean.

jimx
01-02-2008, 11:45 AM
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.
------------------------------

Uncle Joe was ruthless. Many of the dead were armed; there was no shortage of guns in the 40s


Begin quote....

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

In 1911 it was the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian genocide, if it was really was a genocide, had more to do with keeping food out of an area than mass executions.


------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Most of that time frame was during ww2. In 1935 China was 3-years into the war; did they establish gun control while they were being invaded? I know parts of China were under harsh gun control in 35 but that was imposed by the Japanese Empire.



------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated

There was no shortage of guns in 75. After many years of war the winning side went ape S***. If there is a VIP lounge in Hell Im sure Pole Pot (spelling) is there.