Some Gun Control Stats

S

SixForSure

New member
The following was e-mailed to me. Data source unknown, but certainly seems believable:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.

From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

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 1935, China established gun control .

From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1938, Germany established gun control

From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.

From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.

From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control.

From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, 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
gover nment, 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 the 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.
 
Totally meaningless stats.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree.

Yes, some of the stats look to be in error. I also believe that cause and correlation are not clearly defined in some of the instances and would definetly want to verify some of the "gun control" that is being referred to .(There is an infamous Quote/T-shirt/Poster that quotes Hitler talking about gun control that has just been passed in Germany in the 30's that is completely fictitious).

However even if half the data there is incorrect, there still appears to be numerous data points that support the position of JPFO, i.e. "genocides only happen in countries with gun control" (Please go to their website(s) and read /decide for youself). www.jpfo.org

Forget the emotional response. Forget the theoretical reasons why this should not be true. Stick with facts not opinoins. I am not familiar with any genocides that did happen in countries without gun control ( I am always willing to learn if someone can give me an example(s) of such a genocide occurring in a country without gun control ).

Until someone can disprove JPFOs theory (and again I have presented it poorly and incompletley) I am not willing to discard a theory that seems to be accurate and has not been disproved just because I do not like it.

NukemJim
 
Guess the native Americans would disagree with that
Click to expand...

As always I could be wrong but it was my understanding that firearm were restricted from Native Americans during the 1800's when the genocide against Native Americans occurred.

I know that there were restrictions about firearms on reservations in the 1800's

NukemJim
 
genocides only happen in countries with gun control
Click to expand...
I think it would be better to say that after gun control, genocide usually follows(eventually). Genocide is like any other crime, it happened before guns were invented
 
I am always willing to learn if someone can give me an example(s) of such a genocide occurring in a country without gun control
Click to expand...
Spanish Inquisition?

Or did genocide not exist before the invention of the firearm?
 
I either read or heard the opening statistics somewhere else within the last two or three weeks. Although it would be nice to know the sources, they seem very plausible.

Bob
*********************************************
 
I like the time lag in the stats. It sort of takes a huge bite out of the cause and effect aspect claimed of the stats when there is such a delay. In Turkey it was 4 years, China 13, Cambodia 19.

Wildalaska is right in that the numbers given are meaningless, at least in the context presented. They are rendered more meaningless by conclusions such as...

** Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.**
Click to expand...

People are not rounded up and killed BECAUSE of gun control. That is just a blatant misstatement of fact. People are rounded up and killed by various governmental entities for a whole host of reasons. If gun control plays in this matter, it is simply as a tool, not a cause.

Strangely in looking at the stats, another aspect that is apparent is that gun control has also work to help make the many of the enemies (some now former enemies) of America weaker.

The notion that gun control is responsible is myopic at best. Just how many folks were killed in the Crusades...which had nothing to do with gun or weapon control? How about the Inquisition? No, the cause is not a lack of weaponry. That may be a sometime side effect, but not the cause. The cause, or causes, are rooted in social, political, and religious beliefs pertaining to power.

If you want to make the argument that gun control is a bad thing (which I agree) then make a realistic argument where there is valid cause and effect. When you toss out a bunch of stats and then claim there is a cause and effect there that actually is not there as claimed, then you fall into the category of making the same type of stupid claims the gun control advocates make that "clearly show" guns cause crime, death, mistfortune, grief, etc. And yet, we know guns don't "cause" these things and harp on gun control advocates for their poor ability to reason.
 
Genocide is rarely the reason for the stripping of a population's rights. It seems, though, that genocide is usually preceeded by the loss of basic rights, including the right to self defense. The Crusades weren't an example of genocide, nor was the Inquisition. If you're going to argue that "facts" presented weren't correct, try not to counter them with sound bytes of your own.

genocide: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
[Origin: 1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -cide] ".

Neither the Crusades, which were fought to return the Holy Land to Christianity, nor the Inquisition, which was to weed out heretics, qualify. Heretics weren't a particular group, and the Crusades were never about the systematic destruction of Islam. To be quite honest, the Native American Tribes only quite loosely, and then mostly conspiratorily, fit the definition.

While I agree that the logic doesn't pass the litmus tests that we have set up for ourselves regarding "truth", it may be that the bar is too high. The majority of people today, who aren't interested in firearms, would find the original statement as true, or false, as anything put out by the Brady Bunch. We needn't convert the faithful, but rather the faithless. Sound byte tech has been proven again and again to work. If only to get someone interested enough to delve further into a subject. Compared to many of today's anti-gunners, there's at LEAST a plausible linkage.

It's entirely possible to be so demanding about the truth that you lose sight of that same truth. Too many requirements for veracity often will come across as arrogant and petty, not as wise.

Face it, most of today's people would place Armenia somewhere in Italy, and Cambodia as a city in China. For them, history begins with the day they were born.:)
 
Genocide doesn't happen BECAUSE there is total gun control. However, genocide can only happen where the means of self defense have been removed first.

Bob
 
Very wise words, JR47, thank you. The spanish inquisition was not a genocide; nor were the crusades.

I think that the US gov't did attempt a genocide on native americans, but the reason that disarmament didn't precede it, is for a couple of reasons. First, a lot of the Indians didn't have rifles (some did, many didn't), so their weapons were generally inferior, so "gun control" was not needed nearly as much to effect the genocide. Custer's EXPECTATIONS regarding the armament of the Sioux is proof of the general nature of armament of the Indians, with that notable exception being a huge surprise...obviously, he didn't anticipate being slaughtered at little big horn. And his being slaughtered was about 25% poor tactics, and 75% the Indians being better armed with rifles than was anticipated. Second, there were regular law enforcement controls within the Indian people to monitor and enforce gun disarmament. The U.S. gov't didn't keep band of cops attached to every tribe to enforce a gun ban, so passing one would have been almost useless. Sure the occasional run-ins with the cavalry could have been an opportunity to enforce gun control, but all in all, in would have been unenforceable, as completely separate as the two societies were. So, the point is, a general rule (such as, genocide is preceded by gun control) CAN have exceptions which do NOT necessarily disprove the general rule. Obviously, the first glaring exception would be "in any society which preceded the invention of guns in time". One cannot have gun control without guns.

Quote:
** Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.**


People are not rounded up and killed BECAUSE of gun control. That is just a blatant misstatement of fact.
Click to expand...

No, it's not necessarily a "blatent misstatement of fact". Not worded in the best way, but yet not technically in error, depending upon how one defines the phrase "because of". If one attaches a meaning to "because of" in that context such as strictly a sine qua non ("without which, not"), or but-for definition, then it's arguably accurate. "But-for gun control, the genocide would not have happened, and therefore it happened [IN PART] because of gun control". The "in part" needs to be added to make it clear, and in any event it's still not the best way to phrase things. And I know what you're saying, DNS, and you're right that given the meaning of "because of" that MOST people would ascribe to that phrase, it is incorrect. But it just depends on how you look at that particular phrase (because of). If you give it the less-preferred meaning of strictly "but-for", then it's accurate. So I can see what they mean by that statement, and cannot argue its general truth, since I personally believe that in a modern society, disarmament via gun control IS a but-for precedent to genocide. Sure, there distinct REASONS for the genocide. But several conditions precedent. And disarmament is certainly not a REASON for the genocide. It is one of the conditions precedent (if you believe that). So "reason for" and "because of" are different ideas; not one and the same. "Because of" can imply either a reason for OR a condition precedent; or, it can imply ONLY a reason for. Depending on how it's defined.

We needn't convert the faithful, but rather the faithless. Sound byte tech has been proven again and again to work. If only to get someone interested enough to delve further into a subject. Compared to many of today's anti-gunners, there's at LEAST a plausible linkage.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top