A little gun history

[Little Galaxy]

This one landed in Hubby's inbox. The sender was actually asking whether the bits about Australia were true. Hubby wasn't sure, but did seriously question the intelligence of whoever wrote this in the first place. (He put it far less diplomatically than that, though!)

And the original did contain red text.

_____________________________

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

I Thought you might appreciate this . .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 the 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 now only the criminals still have 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, home invasion robberies (with the people still at home) and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has so drastically 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.

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 brethren, before it is too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, people are 'citizens'.

Without them, they 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.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Little Galaxy

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)!

This site seems to analyze that claim fairly well (though I can't vouch for its accuracy of course):
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

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

Err... yeah. That and the US Navy are the only things that stopped them.

[Ravenhull]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

This site seems to analyze that claim fairly well (though I can't vouch for its accuracy of course):
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.htmlErr... yeah. That and the US Navy are the only things that stopped them.

Well, and China was so wrapped up and quiet by then.

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.

The problem with this (and the other examples) is that it seems to assume the premise that prior to "gun control", all of those people would have had immediate access to modern firearms and the will to use them. I'm not sure that would float: the firearms that were available outside of the wealthy houses would probably be limited to antiquated hunting weapons, and I doubt that they would be available in quantities enough to alter the course of events even if gun control wasn't established.
It also seems that in all of these cases gun control was likely established not as a means to remove the guns from the general population, but rather as a means to quell future rebellions by removing the possibility of importing new weaponry.

In any case, few of these atrocities had as much to do with removing public access to firearms as they did with the simple fact that the incoming regime was better armed and / or organized than anybody else in the first place.

[Troberg]

As much as I disagree with the logic of cause and effect in the OP, it is hard to argue that a well armed population would have made these misdeeds much more difficult.

Err... yeah. That and the US Navy are the only things that stopped them.

That, and the logistics nightmare which makes intercontinental invasions impossible without a staging area close to the landing site(s).

[chillas]

Originally Posted by Troberg

it is hard to argue that a well armed population would have made these misdeeds much more difficult.

Actually, it's quite easy to argue that. Some unorganized, untrained citizens with rifles are not going to be much of a problem for a fully armed, trained and organized military force.

[Squirt]

It would be interesting to compare this to a list of genocides that occurred in areas that did not have gun control. Did Rwanda and Kosovo have strict gun control?

[diddy]

Originally Posted by chillas

Actually, it's quite easy to argue that. Some unorganized, untrained citizens with rifles are not going to be much of a problem for a fully armed, trained and organized military force.

Very true. Even if every citizen was armed, does not equate them as a formal army. They may be an inconvenience, but unless the citizens far outnumber the formal army, it is no contest who will probably win.

Originally Posted by diddy

Very true. Even if every citizen was armed, does not equate them as a formal army. They may be an inconvenience, but unless the citizens far outnumber the formal army, it is no contest who will probably win.

Uuuhhhhh,, Did you not see " Red Dawn"

[damian]

In the 13th Century, Persians had no access to guns and 90% of the population were wiped out by Mongol hordes.

Gee, if the 12 Apostles were packing heat, Jesus would still be alive today.

I don't really recall a time in Australia's recent history that any armed civillian stopped an armed robbery. You see, before we had the gun ban, we still didn't really have guns. The ban on semi-auto and automatic weapons was put in place after the Port Arthur Massacre.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by JHHS1981

Uuuhhhhh,, Did you not see " Red Dawn"

No why? Plus I did not say that formal armies will always win. Note that I said probably win.

[Troberg]

Very true. Even if every citizen was armed, does not equate them as a formal army. They may be an inconvenience, but unless the citizens far outnumber the formal army, it is no contest who will probably win.

It's not a matter of who would win, it's a matter of increasing the price tag on that win. If the price is high enough, the dictator will not try it, as less violent methods will be more effective. In this way, the dictator will be "forced" to play along with democratic rules, simply because anything else will break what he is trying to achieve.

[CannonFodder]

Originally Posted by chillas

Actually, it's quite easy to argue that. Some unorganized, untrained citizens with rifles are not going to be much of a problem for a fully armed, trained and organized military force.

Ya' don't think so, huh? I'm here to tell you from first hand experience that you're wrong.

[DemonWolf]

The only times that I know of when a well armed population was able to stand up to and defeat a well trained and armed army was in the 16th & 17th centuries, when military grade rifles were about the same quality as the hunting rifles used by the militias. In some cases, the military rifles were poorer as accuracy was more needed for a hunting rifle.

Todays militia would not have access to armored vehicles and aircraft. They might be able to rely on geurrilla tactics and do some serious damage to an army, but I would not give them high odds of victory.

[damian]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

The only times that I know of when a well armed population was able to stand up to and defeat a well trained and armed army was in the 16th & 17th centuries

How about Afghanistan v Russia ? Vietnam v America United ?

[Troberg]

Todays militia would not have access to armored vehicles and aircraft. They might be able to rely on geurrilla tactics and do some serious damage to an army, but I would not give them high odds of victory.

You are thinking about it in the wrong way. On the battlefield, they don't stand a chance. Guerilla tactics, quick strikes then going back to being ordinary civilians again, that's where the power lies. Never defend, just evade. Attack when and where it suits you, let the strong side worry about defending everything. You might be weaker if you sum everything up, but you can always be stronger at selected weak points. Tanks and aircraft are not worth anything as long as you aren't prepared to level towns just to get a few guerillas. Also, if the guerillas are part of the ordinary population, tank crews and pilots can be sniped off duty, and without them, the machines are just expensive junk.

I'm not saying they will win, but it will be very hard for the dictator to win without going down a route that might bring the international community down on him.

This is classic assymetrical warfare, and it has been proven time and time again.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by diddy

Very true. Even if every citizen was armed, does not equate them as a formal army. They may be an inconvenience, but unless the citizens far outnumber the formal army, it is no contest who will probably win.

What countries have more military personnel than civillians? According to Nationmaster the highest per capita is 57 per 1000 people. USA is only like 5 per 1000. The military is already vastly outnumbered, even assuming that every single person in the military will stay on and not desert when they are told they must shoot their fellow countrymen.

[Beejtronic]

I don't know much about gun control, but I couldn't help wondering if the OP was a Dalek.

They were rounded up and EXTERMINATED!

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by damian

How about Afghanistan v Russia ?

The Afgani forces were supplied by outside governments and were not limited to weapons suggested in the OP. They had modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons supplied by NATO countries. That evened things up a bit. The Soviets had the dreaded Hind Gunship, but the Afganis had shoulder mounted rockets that could take it down before it even knew it was a target.

This was trained and equipped militia v. an army.

This was not a case of an "armed population" as much as it was a population propped up by the invader's enemies.


Vietnam v America United ?[/QUOTE]

The North Vietnamese army had both tanks and aircraft as well as other modern weapons. Guerilla warfare in the south made the war more costly, but the enemy was a foreign nation with a well trained army.


Neither situation was civillians taking up arms to defend themselves from the government "rounding them up and exterminating them as suggested in the OP. The point in the OP is that civillians owning firearms would have prevented these things. The two situations you presented were not civillians defending themselves from their own government.

Perhaps if foreign governments had supplied those civillians in the OP with training and modern weapons, the outcomes would have seen different.

[Mickey Blue]

Sort of a nitpick, but I always get annoyed when people refer to "gun control" as a general bad thing and a synonym for "gun ban". Really, to me and maybe I'm wrong, gun control would be anything we did to limit guns, so that means if there were any rules about when/how/who could purchase any gun (and if you wanna take it a step farther any "arm") then we have gun control.

Can't sell them to violent multiple felons? 'Gun Control',

Can't sell them without a background check? 'Gun Control',

Can't sell Uzis, M-16s, and Bazookas? 'Gun Control'.



In other words while I would oppose a gun ban, and do think certain methods of gun control are useless at best, I do not think having regulations in place is a bad thing.


For what its worth I think that aside from the background checks and limits for military grade weaponry we have now, I think people should have to be able to prove their skill with a weapon particularly for their concieled license. Want to have a gun so you can act like John Wayne if there is a robbery or something? Fine, heck maybe you'll save my life someday, but you'd better know how to shoot the damn thing and hit what you are aiming at if you want that right.



But yea, what these people really mean is "gun ban", not gun control, heck even the NRA supports background checks.

-MB