[SIGP250]

Gun History


After reading the following historical facts, read the part
about Switzerland twice


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
of13 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.


------------------------------

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.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.


SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!


SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.


SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!


IT'S A NO BRAINER!


DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!


If you are too,
please forward.
Just think how powerful our government is getting!


They think these other countries just didn't do it right.


Learn from history.


:smile:

 

[Loadedtech]

Kinda scary isn't it?

 

[Stetson]

Politician's look back at history with revisionist ideas.They tend to overlook the
truth ! Our country is at real economical risk,how long due you think we could
sustain a massive war like the second world war with out the cash to pay for
the material,transportation,soldiers for 5 plus years.The United States provided billions of dollars of aid to the allies.During World War two we use movie stars ,sports figures and battle field heroes that went on bond drives to support
the war effort.

 

[ccw9mm]

Kinda scary isn't it?

Yes, it is. What's even worse is that supposedly bright people in our own country dismiss most of this as hogwash. And yet, it's established historical fact. Our politicians don't want to face the fact that we're on a path well-trod by most every two-bit, absolutist dictatorship in the past 100yrs ... and that it's highly likely to end in the extermination of large groups of the population due to political whim, out of supposed political necessity. What's truly scary is that so few believe it's possible.

I don't see it as inevitable, necessarily. But I'm not so naive and wishful as to think that some sort of social nirvana exists on the far side of all this invasiveness and willingness to skirt the Constitution's protections. BIG government can have but one result: BIG invasiveness, in the end. That can't be good, if once it drives off the rails. Caution is due, if for no other reason than history is a strong indicator on this one.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

Exactly so. Yet, even armed citizens can be heavily over-powered, when the power is monstrously centralized. Being armed, alone, doesn't guarantee anything. A central power needs to be reined-in and have its claws kept short, even more so when it displays a history of willingness to ignore the Constitution and protections when it suits them as a power independent of the People.

 

[Bark'n]

Sig250 I copied that post into a word document to save so I can reference it later as needed. I hope you don't mind.

Thanks for that little tidbit of historical note! It will come in handy.

 

[Thanis]

Cherry picking. It is not a history lesson, people need to learn all the facts before making an argument.

For example, from Wiki (search Gun politics in Switzerland), "To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security."

So that means most of us on this forum WOULD NOT QUALIFY for a CC permit in Switzerland!!! If high levels of gun ownership = low crime rate, then given the example, are you not also stating few CC permits = low crime rate? Then also consider the United States, high levels of gun ownership = comparatively easy access to legal carry = high crime rate. The argument being made is for an increase in restrictions if Switzerland is the example.

The entire argument made in the OP is flawed. Plenty of countries have 0 gun control with a great deal of violence, and an AK-47 in every hut. To equate firearm violence to one fact, private firearm ownership, is about the same logic as the other side. Then also, consider Norway, with a similiar crime rate as Switzerland, has many regularions (mostly registration and transportation related) that if implemented in the U.S. would have several on this forum quoting "history." BTW, those registration and transportation related firearm regulations are about the same in Switzerland as Norway.

The far more likely causes of violence are far more likely related to:

1) Several issues considered politically incorrect to mention.
2) Income level.

I am not trying to make the case for or against gun control in this post. I'm just stating that Switzerland is a poor example, because IMO, many anti-gun would be more then happy to provide for you the same restrictions as Switzerland.

 

[jumpwing]

Violence is a symptom of selfishness, an inseparable element of human nature. Whether it takes the form of greed, lust for power, ego, or pure disregard for other people, it is the root of violence. The weapon is irrelevant, as is economic status, political or sexual orientation, ethnicity, or geographic location. People often cite low income as being a "cause" of violence but the fact is that the "poor" make up the better part of any country's population. Naturally it would have the highest violent crime numbers, especially considering that people of wealth and influence have better resources with which to exercise their aggression.

At any rate, the attacker cannot be controlled by law, only punished after the fact; assuming he can be identified, caught, and convicted. The only good a gun law can do is determine whether or not the law-abiding can be armed in their own defense because it is only the law-abiding who will obey it.

 

[Thanis]

...The weapon is irrelevant, as is economic status, political or sexual orientation, ethnicity, or geographic location. People often cite low income as being a "cause" of violence but the fact is that the "poor" make up the better part of any country's population. Naturally it would have the highest violent crime numbers, especially considering that people of wealth and influence have better resources with which to exercise their aggression...

Sure crime happens every where. However, there is a factual correlation to income level and violence, and until addressed, will continue (well, assuming if addressed it will change). If you can provide an example of high income communities in the U.S. with high violent crime rates, let me know, because I can't find them. The only studies I've found that counter crime rates low vs high income is that middle-income communities have higher crime rates than low (matters how the crime rate is measured, and gets into some non-PC issues aka criminals travel to the middle-income communities).

Maybe it is because the wealthy have access to protection (forget the access to influence and legal resources). IDK, not the main topic of the thread.

...At any rate, the attacker cannot be controlled by law...

Agree, I would only add being armed does not prevent violence, just a chance it changes the outcome, those are the examples to look for.

 

[ccw9mm]

Sure crime happens every where. However, there is a factual correlation to income level and violence, and until addressed, will continue (well, assuming if addressed it will change).

Yes and no.

Things like correlation rate the larger picture's tendencies. Like anything viewed from 10,000 feet, however, it misses the granularity you get on the street. There will ALWAYS be crime, 'cause humans are what they are. There will ALWAYS be those who get off on the power trip, the blood, the fact that they're able to get away with something, or a hundred other motivators.

I have seen nothing that helps predict the likelihood of any of these sorts of motivators crossing someone's path in a year. And so, we're still left with the random aspect.

Until the ACME Criminals' Union Local #243 sends me a regular calendar of upcoming events, I'll still not know when the next situation's going to happen. I suspect most folks are in possession of a wonky crystal ball, as well.

 

[edr9x23super]

The bottom line is that ARMED societies give any dictator or tyrant a moment to pause and think about what he is doing; an unarmed populace is an open invitation to tyranny.

We are the most well armed civilian populace in recorded history, and we need to make sure we keep it that way. After all, we are still not out of the woods yet, and we may well need them for the unthinkable.....

 

[Thanis]

...I have seen nothing that helps predict the likelihood of any of these sorts of motivators crossing someone's path in a year...I suspect most folks are in possession of a wonky crystal ball, as well.

I once was at the same table for lunch as a very wealthy man (100s of millions, but not a billionaire). I don't know how the topic resulted in a statement I'll never forget. The multi-millionaire was complaining about the run of the mill millionaire (several were also at the table), who he could own many times over, but were always competing for the same products. So he had to often purchase something at more then its value, if he wanted it, and it was in limited supply, biding against millionaires.

Boy to have those problems.

However it think the reason you see low income crime against middle to high income is simple. Where else are criminals going to get the products they want. I don't think it is crystal ball stats, just a reality of where supply and demand are. The reason lower wealth crime is more violent is not, IMO, because the lower income have a greater number of vioilent criminals, but because for the % with that weak moral fiber, there is less to lose. A wealth person with poor moral fiber, in theory, or less motovation because there are easier methods foer them to aquire an item, has more to lose, and would take a less violent, less risky, path.

Again, naturally there are exceptions, but there is also a norm.

Sorry if this is side tracking the OP. Still think the OP history lesson is a poor example(s) of pro-2A arguments. Further plenty of societies were armed, but were conquered from within. Being armed, does not prevent violence, just helps to alter the possible outcome.

 

[SIGP250]

I once was at the same table for lunch as a very wealthy man (100s of millions, but not a billionaire). I don't know how the topic resulted in a statement I'll never forget. The multi-millionaire was complaining about the run of the mill millionaire (several were also at the table), who he could own many times over, but were always competing for the same products. So he had to often purchase something at more then its value, if he wanted it, and it was in limited supply, biding against millionaires.

Boy to have those problems.

However it think the reason you see low income crime against middle to high income is simple. Where else are criminals going to get the products they want. I don't think it is crystal ball stats, just a reality of where supply and demand are. The reason lower wealth crime is more violent is not, IMO, because the lower income have a greater number of vioilent criminals, but because for the % with that weak moral fiber, there is less to lose. A wealth person with poor moral fiber, in theory, or less motovation because there are easier methods foer them to aquire an item, has more to lose, and would take a less violent, less risky, path.

Again, naturally there are exceptions, but there is also a norm.

Sorry if this is side tracking the OP. Still think the OP history lesson is a poor example(s) of pro-2A arguments. Further plenty of societies were armed, but were conquered from within. Being armed, does not prevent violence, just helps to alter the possible outcome.

It is easy to site what anyone can look up for themselves on the internet. Have a look at this link. GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons

It seems you are pro gun control.

 

[TucAzRider]

The bottom line is that ARMED societies give any dictator or tyrant a moment to pause and think about what he is doing; an unarmed populace is an open invitation to tyranny.

We are the most well armed civilian populace in recorded history, and we need to make sure we keep it that way. After all, we are still not out of the woods yet, and we may well need them for the unthinkable.....

Well said.. :35:

 

[Ram Rod]

I've seen this before somewhere. This time I've also saved it in my documents. Thanks for the post.

 

[Thanis]

It is easy to site what anyone can look up for themselves on the internet. Have a look at this link. GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons

It seems you are pro gun control.

Please believe any tone you read in this post is not intended to be confrontational. I'm just sharing that I think the facts provided do not support your statements.

It is your OP that supported the pro-control view. In the OP you are suggesting Switzerland's firearm policies, a country that does not issue many CC permits, would help reduce firearm violence. The information you posted lead you to believe that Switzerland is a good, individual right to bear arms example, because there is a high level of firearm ownership. However Switzerland is not a good example for 2A support, do to the transportation and carry method restrictions.

Now your new link in the above post, provides information that supports my statement that private gun ownership of a population does have a correlation to the crime rate of that population. The facts provided are arbitrary, as in based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion. So in the link, that is why the author used the heading "Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries."

There are no solid facts that private ownership of firearms prevents firearm violence or prevents attempted coups on that society. It may change the outcome after the fact, but there is no proof it stops the attempted event.

IMO, there is a possibility that private ownership of firearms does incease "firearm violence." I doubt it would change that population's overall violence. There will be exceptions. Still, compared to populations with little private ownership, those with firearms could have some increase in the overall use of firearms in a crime. For example, China reportedly has very little gun violence, and private ownership is heavly restricted. Plenty of other violent crimes in China to make up for this.

Take a look at car jackings. Back when you could hot wire a car, car jackings were few. Once anti-theft ignitions increased, car jackings increased. Net result, fewer thefts, more dead drivers. As is often the case, the criminals adapt. Once firearms are the norm, the crimes become more violent. This is not an argument against gun ownership, as the ownership does not change the attempted crimes, but does have a way of equalizing the situation.

For example, in the U.K. I believe they have a greater number of deaths by bludgeons. Now the average street thug is going to have more physical fighting skills than your average potential victim. However you give each a firearm, and the odds get better for the potential victim.

PS - Since we are talking history, historically Switzerland would be an example of a militia driven and hunting related right to bear arms as apposed to the U.S., that has an both a militia and individual right and is unrelated to the privlage of hunting. Not a perfect analogy, but would make a good read.

 

[tangoseal]

It wont happen in my little part of the country. I was born with the freedoms I cherish and I will die with those same freedoms. No one will ever come to my home and take my rights or I will die trying.

yeah its out of the closet now.

 

[SIGP250]

Please believe any tone you read in this post is not intended to be confrontational. I'm just sharing that I think the facts provided do not support your statements.

It is your OP that supported the pro-control view. In the OP you are suggesting Switzerland's firearm policies, a country that does not issue many CC permits, would help reduce firearm violence. The information you posted lead you to believe that Switzerland is a good, individual right to bear arms example, because there is a high level of firearm ownership. However Switzerland is not a good example for 2A support, do to the transportation and carry method restrictions.

Now your new link in the above post, provides information that supports my statement that private gun ownership of a population does have a correlation to the crime rate of that population. The facts provided are arbitrary, as in based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion. So in the link, that is why the author used the heading "Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries."

There are no solid facts that private ownership of firearms prevents firearm violence or prevents attempted coups on that society. It may change the outcome after the fact, but there is no proof it stops the attempted event.

IMO, there is a possibility that private ownership of firearms does incease "firearm violence." I doubt it would change that population's overall violence. There will be exceptions. Still, compared to populations with little private ownership, those with firearms could have some increase in the overall use of firearms in a crime. For example, China reportedly has very little gun violence, and private ownership is heavly restricted. Plenty of other violent crimes in China to make up for this.

Take a look at car jackings. Back when you could hot wire a car, car jackings were few. Once anti-theft ignitions increased, car jackings increased. Net result, fewer thefts, more dead drivers. As is often the case, the criminals adapt. Once firearms are the norm, the crimes become more violent. This is not an argument against gun ownership, as the ownership does not change the attempted crimes, but does have a way of equalizing the situation.

For example, in the U.K. I believe they have a greater number of deaths by bludgeons. Now the average street thug is going to have more physical fighting skills than your average potential victim. However you give each a firearm, and the odds get better for the potential victim.

PS - Since we are talking history, historically Switzerland would be an example of a militia driven and hunting related right to bear arms as apposed to the U.S., that has an both a militia and individual right and is unrelated to the privlage of hunting. Not a perfect analogy, but would make a good read.

I do not wish to be controversial either. The facts however are what the are and were compiled and sent to members in good faith that all information contained in my thread was true and factual information.

You have disputed my facts about Switzerland. This is factual information. I have tried to provide additional information. Switzerland may be a slightly dramatic and an extreme example due to population statistics but is completely factual information to readers and members of this forum.

I am doing my best to be diplomatic with you. You are a prolific writer and member. I just don't understand your position on gun control or why you dispute facts as they are.

Do you wish to provide facts disputing my white paper?

Some also believe the holocaust never existed. Rather than more back and forth rhetoric, please provide some substantial evidence that my thread claims are not true or completely factual. I honer the fact that this is an open for discussion within reason and forum rules. What is your true position on 2A?

 

[Thanis]

I think my main point is being missed. Switzerland is not a good example of individual firearm rights. There are several transportation and carry regulations in Switzerland most in the U.S. would find unacceptable.

So if the logic follows, that we would want the U.S. crime rate to be like Switzerland's, you are providing an example of a country with more regulations than the U.S.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RETSUPT99]

Thanks for the post, I saved it also.
We humans have bad memories, and we are slow learners.:blink:

 

[SIGP250]

I think my main point is being missed. Switzerland is not a good example of individual firearm rights. There are several transportation and carry regulations in Switzerland most in the U.S. would find unacceptable.

So if the logic follows, that we would want the U.S. crime rate to be like Switzerland's, you are providing an example of a country with more regulations than the U.S.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm an 01-FFL I sell all types of guns and ammo each day up to and including .50 cal. semi-auto. There are states in the USA that are just as restrictive as Switzerland. Some I choose not to sell to. Mass, DC and some items in CA. The backward Republic of Illinois has no concealed Carry permit law nor does Wisc. In some states, concealed carry is possible but only if you have a reason beyond LEO such as armed security guard.

My short history lesson including Switzerland was and is factual. It was not planted to provoke debate.

Some Americans take our right of freedom for granted. Our Second Amendment Constitutional right is one that we need to protect and preserve.

Have you noticed, in the past few years, most police cars used to have the words "Serve and Protect" on them. Now they don't.

I'm still confused on your 2A position. :scruntiny: