Gun Control & Bans - Crunching Some Numbers

What type of gun control would you like to see?


  • Total voters
    7

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#1
I realize there is already a thread about gun violence numbers but if I posted this in that thread it would likely hijack it. It's somewhat different. To put "gun control" into perspective for those who support it, here are some numbers:

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER:
  • In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, 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.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:

  • Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 %
  • Armed robberies are up 44%
  • In that countries' state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%

Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it's too late: Five steps that YOU can do to help protect our Second Amendment rights: Can Do!
Are you considering backing gun control laws?

Now I'm sure many people will say "Oh but the _____ government would NEVER round people up and exterminate them. I'm sure the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia governments gave their citizens reason to believe they would be rounded up and exterminated after their guns were taken away.. Yeah that would make sense.

Would it happen? Hopefully not, but the facts above simply cannot be ignored. As history shows, 56 million (reported) people in the last century would have a different opinion on so called "gun control" aka "citizen herding" if they were given a second chance at life.

Some proponents of the US Assault Weapons Ban have openly said that if it was possible to ban guns completely without getting voted out of office, they would support a complete ban.

YouTube - NRA: The Clinton Gun Ban Story

Some interesting quotes from this video:

"The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center
"Assault Weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; it's virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to a broader gun control." - Washington post Editorial, September 15, 1994
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative stretegy! We're going to beat guns into submission." - US Rep. Charles Shumer (Press Conference, December 1993)
"Passing a law like the Assault Weapons Ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move... It's only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5 1996
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban... 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in,' I would have done it." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (Gun Ban Sponsor), 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
"(Some) criminologist relate the decline (in violent crime) to... the efficiency of gun control laws, which is patently absurd, ... Here's a better explanation: The decline can be explained in part by policy-driven law enforcement efforts that take the bad guys off the streets." - John Di Iulio, Wall Street Journal, September 6, 1995
I agree with the people who say that the Assault Weapons Ban is only a stepping stone to a complete ban down the line. First they wait until people are used to some guns being banned. Then they create fear for other types and then fear for guns altogether and before you know it it's illegal to own a gun.

What do you think? Discuss.
 

snowflake

Registered Member
#2
They should all be banned. Guns just hurt people, If no guns less crime. But then again people would just find something else. Guns are banned in the UK and i hope that's the way it stays.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#3
Did you even read my thread though? It includes several facts about what has happened when guns have been banned completely. None of which are things that anybody would wish upon themselves so how can you support a complete ban with such facts in front of you?

If you don't read the whole thing then at least read the first part in quotes.
 

snowflake

Registered Member
#4
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:

  • Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 %
  • Armed robberies are up 44%
  • In that countries' state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%
Yes i did read it Hybrix..... I find this really interesting.
Here in the Uk i think people think guns make the crime now this might be due to them been banned !! But looking at what's happened in Australia it's not guns at all.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#5
Hmmm, that's a pretty interesting set of numbers there....



The only thing I can say in defense of the first bit, is that I really couldn't see the American government ever committing an atrocity like that.

If ever they did, it'd be World War III.

Hybrix said:
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:

  • Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 %
  • Armed robberies are up 44%
  • In that countries' state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%
Perhaps... But if it's only been 12 months, it's way too early to be making conclusions about long-term effects --> Let's see how things are in Australia 10 years from now, and discuss it then!



I voted Partial Ban, because it makes sense. For certain, your average Joe doesn't need an M-60.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
#6
I voted Partial ban. Criminals will always find a way to get some form of gun or weapon to hurt with. Especially if other countries have guns despite themselves not. So completely taking away a persons ability to have an equal defense is somewhat dumb. There's tons of other ways to defend oneself, and I'm sure lots of people know how. But how many joe shmoes know dick all about defending themselves. If a country is gonna allow guns however, there should be strict training progroms involved. Basically, you have to prove you can use one before you can buy it. Those are just some of my thoughts anyhow.
 

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#7
In the case of governments rounding people up to be executed, I would hope that the America would never come to that. In any case though, armed robberies do increase after gun bans are implemented, moreso than any other crime. Murder rates increase too, but to a smaller extent, and if you look at statistics in America, they seem to not be a significant upward trend after gun bans, as in, yes the rates in general go up, but the same can be said for most places. Not saying that in favor of gun bans, though. Armed robberies increase, most likely because criminals feel that they are less likely to have a gun pulled back on them.

I've always felt that the logic that guns cause crime so ban guns is flawed, since you will always be able to procure a firearm, legally or illegally. Guns don't cause crime, anyhow, since they are inanimate objects.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#8
I voted; INTENSIVE BAN: Both semi-auto and full-auto guns should be banned.

I think it should be a step further and include all handguns. The only people to have firearms should be those who need them for proffessional purposes.


Hybrix said:
^^^^######^^^^^
Talk about paranoia.

Of all the examples you have included they involve countries that were under going cultural revolution. When the wheels of a cultural revolution starts moving no poxy civil militia will stop it, it would infact accelerate it as the perpetrators will have access to a greater number of weapons and you would have circumstances more similar to those of the Spanish civil war, Yugoslavia or the Rwandan or Somalian genocides. It takes two to tango, if you blame the dissidents for being unarmed you have to blame the perpetrators for being armed. In the case of all the above examples it was the citizens who turned against other citizens, the governments power is in words not weapons, they turn neighbour against neighbour.



Also with the exception of Germany everyone of those examples is outside of the western sphere of CIVILisation. Im not going to say the west is exempt but I dont think we will see those days repeating.



Regarding the Australia statistics, it has been only 12 months! there are also many other factors involved in those statistics including a large dissident Asian migration. You will inevitably see a rise in crime immedeatly after an amnesty, but then they are not designed for short term premise.


I've always felt that the logic that guns cause crime so ban guns is flawed, since you will always be able to procure a firearm, legally or illegally. Guns don't cause crime, anyhow, since they are inanimate objects.
Indeed. They are inanimate objects, extremely dangerous ones when in the wrong hands. The fewer guns there are the less chance they will be in the wrong hands, that is the logic. It will not stop crime but it will stop firearm related death and injury be they criminal acts or freak accidents. Reminds me of the old saying "you should not be scared of flying, its the crashing part that kills you".

since you will always be able to procure a firearm, legally or illegally.
You see thats where I see the problem lay, it is all to easy to get a weapon in some countries. Any Tom, DIck or Harry can procure a weapon with ease, the consequence is that a grudge can turn to a murder with comparative ease, a small robbery can quickly turn into a homicide with ease, a bar fight can go from a game of fisticuffs to being a bloodbath with the same amount of ease that was required to procure a firearm in the first place.

Okay lets set-up an example; a man sees his wife with another man, he is heart broken, teeming with anger and mentally unstable, he wishes they were dead. Keeping in mind he is not thinking straight, he is seeing nothing but red anger. If he has access to a firearm he would most probably do some thing he would regret later. If it is made increasingly difficult to procure a handgun then he has too go through many steps, in each one of those steps he gives himself the oppurtunity to change his mind.

You lpace this concept on any scenario be it a guy in a santa suit, a college student to a gangmember. Having access to that inanimate object acceleraes and amplifies the crime they would be committing.
 
Last edited:

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#9
Did you even read my thread though? It includes several facts about what has happened when guns have been banned completely. None of which are things that anybody would wish upon themselves so how can you support a complete ban with such facts in front of you?

If you don't read the whole thing then at least read the first part in quotes.
Also here are a few more fun facts to back up what you are saying Hybrix.

From NCPA | A Leader In Promoting Private Alternatives To Government Regulation & Control

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
And just for you snowflake...

UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled.
Link

Enjoy your gun free Utopia England. I'd rather take my chances and have a gun or 16 :)
------
Hmmm, that's a pretty interesting set of numbers there....

The only thing I can say in defense of the first bit, is that I really couldn't see the American government ever committing an atrocity like that.

If ever they did, it'd be World War III.
They won't do an outright ban. That would piss a bunch of people off. They will do it thru gun control, taxes, bans of certain firearms etc... slowly so people won't notice.
------
I think it should be a step further and include all handguns. The only people to have firearms should be those who need them for proffessional purposes
 
Last edited:

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#10
The whole argument about folks needing guns to protect themselves from the government makes no sense in modern first-world nations. If the military and police in a nation are backing the government (which would probably mean the majority of the population backed it), the government would crush any resistance like it was swatting a fly. If the military and police don't back the government, the government won't be the government long enough to do anything that would require a resistance to form. Now if folks in the military and police forces split on the issue, the deciding factor in what faction will be victorious would still seem to have nothing to do with whether or not citizens are armed.

In what precise scenario, would armed citizens be the key factor in whether or not the American government could successfully round folks up and kill them?