• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A little gun history

J

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

I just received this in my email from someone I know. I have not verified the accuracy of any specific claims...



[line]
interesting







A LITTLE GUN HISTORY...FYI



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.
------------------------------
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
Au stralia-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 informat ion.

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! ​
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Here is some info to refute one of the claims

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

If one of the "Facts" is phoney, what are the chances of the remainder being questionable?


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


I wonder if the fact that they failed to destroy the US Navy (PacFleet) at Pearl Harbor may have played a far bigger role. It lead to their loss at Wake Island and from there on it was merely a matter of mobilization of forces before they were pushed out of their Pacific Island holdings.
 
J

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

amlevin wrote:
Here is some info to refute one of the claims

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

If one of the "Facts" is phoney, what are the chances of the remainder being questionable?


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


I wonder if the fact that they failed to destroy the US Navy (PacFleet) at Pearl Harbor may have played a far bigger role. It lead to their loss at Wake Island and from there on it was merely a matter of mobilization of forces before they were pushed out of their Pacific Island holdings.
Click to expand...

As for the Snopes article I, for the first time, completely disagree with snopes. They have NOT lookedat the correct statistics. Snopes claims that murder with guns are not up 300%, but are up 171% in Victoria during the given year. They base this off the claim that murders are up 171%. This little snippet does not address murders with guns, just murders overall. Therefore, they have found no evidence to discredit the claim.

They claim a 7.8% increase in Assaults on the elderly is not statistically significant--I think most statisticians would find that on that large of a sample, even half a percentage point is technically significant. (I am not a statistician, but have taken some stat classes and am almost 100% sure that 7.8% is VERY significant, as is 12.8% from 1997!).

Does the proportion of armed robberies involving guns have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with whether gun control has lowered armed robberies? NO. Let's use some hypothetical numbers for an illustration of why this does not matter. Assume we had 100 armed robbers in 1995. after gun control was instituted, the next year there were 300 armed robberies. That is a 3x increase in armed robberies. Assume in 1995 that 50% of the 100 were with guns. assume in 1997 that 25% of the 300 we were with guns. In 1995 there were 50 armed robberies with guns. in 1997, in our hypothetical, there would have been 75. So, not only are armed robberies up, but armed robberies with firearms are up... all the while reporting a decrease in the percentage of armed robberies involving guns... NOW, is that a way to twist the facts or what??? (I don't know the actual numbers and don't have time to research right now... just food for thought)

The point is, Snopes has NOT pointed out a flaw in the numbers.



As for the other claim about the Japanese, I don't know too much about that... I do know that amlevin has a good point there. Of course, it could be a combination of things--we do have a very well armed citizen based militia that would fight against any actual invasion... so, maybe there is truth in it... who knows???
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

joshmmm wrote:
amlevin wrote:
Here is some info to refute one of the claims

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

If one of the "Facts" is phoney, what are the chances of the remainder being questionable?


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


I wonder if the fact that they failed to destroy the US Navy (PacFleet) at Pearl Harbor may have played a far bigger role. It lead to their loss at Wake Island and from there on it was merely a matter of mobilization of forces before they were pushed out of their Pacific Island holdings.
Click to expand...

As for the Snopes article I, for the first time, completely disagree with snopes. They have NOT lookedat the correct statistics. Snopes claims that murder with guns are not up 300%, but are up 171% in Victoria during the given year. They base this off the claim that murders are up 171%. This little snippet does not address murders with guns, just murders overall. Therefore, they have found no evidence to discredit the claim.

They claim a 7.8% increase in Assaults on the elderly is not statistically significant--I think most statisticians would find that on that large of a sample, even half a percentage point is technically significant. (I am not a statistician, but have taken some stat classes and am almost 100% sure that 7.8% is VERY significant, as is 12.8% from 1997!).

Does the proportion of armed robberies involving guns have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with whether gun control has lowered armed robberies? NO. Let's use some hypothetical numbers for an illustration of why this does not matter. Assume we had 100 armed robbers in 1995. after gun control was instituted, the next year there were 300 armed robberies. That is a 3x increase in armed robberies. Assume in 1995 that 50% of the 100 were with guns. assume in 1997 that 25% of the 300 we were with guns. In 1995 there were 50 armed robberies with guns. in 1997, in our hypothetical, there would have been 75. So, not only are armed robberies up, but armed robberies with firearms are up... all the while reporting a decrease in the percentage of armed robberies involving guns... NOW, is that a way to twist the facts or what??? (I don't know the actual numbers and don't have time to research right now... just food for thought)

The point is, Snopes has NOT pointed out a flaw in the numbers.



As for the other claim about the Japanese, I don't know too much about that... I do know that amlevin has a good point there. Of course, it could be a combination of things--we do have a very well armed citizen based militia that would fight against any actual invasion... so, maybe there is truth in it... who knows???
Click to expand...

The key point in the Snopes article wasn't the actual numbers but the fact that not that many Australians owned guns to begin with. Those that were owned were by "special class" citizens. This is along the line of a lot of European countries. You can own a gun, you just have to also belong to a Gun Club and often store the weapon there. Their point was that an increase in crime didn't correlate to the "confiscation" of guns as not that many guns were in the hands of citizens anyway.

Another point they made is that statistics are merely a means of justifying your position. Both sides can often be supported using the same numbers. It just depends on which liar is first.
 
B

BluesBear

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
356
Location
Monroe, Washington, USA
imported post

I recall learning and discussing in both grade school and high school history classes thatshortly before we became involved inWWII, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto told Japanese Prime Minister Tojo, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Thus the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese knew we would then declare war on both Japan and Germany and they were counting on us not being able to survive a war fought on two fronts. History has proven them to be wrong.

Unfortunately if that were to happen today I fear they would be correct.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

joshmmm wrote:
amlevin wrote:
Here is some info to refute one of the claims

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

If one of the "Facts" is phoney, what are the chances of the remainder being questionable?


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


I wonder if the fact that they failed to destroy the US Navy (PacFleet) at Pearl Harbor may have played a far bigger role. It lead to their loss at Wake Island and from there on it was merely a matter of mobilization of forces before they were pushed out of their Pacific Island holdings.
Click to expand...

As for the Snopes article I, for the first time, completely disagree with snopes. They have NOT lookedat the correct statistics. Snopes claims that murder with guns are not up 300%, but are up 171% in Victoria during the given year. They base this off the claim that murders are up 171%. This little snippet does not address murders with guns, just murders overall. Therefore, they have found no evidence to discredit the claim.

They claim a 7.8% increase in Assaults on the elderly is not statistically significant--I think most statisticians would find that on that large of a sample, even half a percentage point is technically significant. (I am not a statistician, but have taken some stat classes and am almost 100% sure that 7.8% is VERY significant, as is 12.8% from 1997!).

Does the proportion of armed robberies involving guns have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with whether gun control has lowered armed robberies? NO. Let's use some hypothetical numbers for an illustration of why this does not matter. Assume we had 100 armed robbers in 1995. after gun control was instituted, the next year there were 300 armed robberies. That is a 3x increase in armed robberies. Assume in 1995 that 50% of the 100 were with guns. assume in 1997 that 25% of the 300 we were with guns. In 1995 there were 50 armed robberies with guns. in 1997, in our hypothetical, there would have been 75. So, not only are armed robberies up, but armed robberies with firearms are up... all the while reporting a decrease in the percentage of armed robberies involving guns... NOW, is that a way to twist the facts or what??? (I don't know the actual numbers and don't have time to research right now... just food for thought)

The point is, Snopes has NOT pointed out a flaw in the numbers.



As for the other claim about the Japanese, I don't know too much about that... I do know that amlevin has a good point there. Of course, it could be a combination of things--we do have a very well armed citizen based militia that would fight against any actual invasion... so, maybe there is truth in it... who knows???
Click to expand...

Actually the Japanese did destroy the majority of the Pacific Fleet. The just missed the carriers and that was their later down fall. Also the lack of follow up after the attack was stupid, IE no invasion. The armed American public was a factor in their not invading the US main land. However they did invade Alaska.



Oh yeah, flaws in the numbers don't make the murder rate not be up by an unbelievable amount. 171% is no more acceptable than 300% and either shows that gun control as it now exists does not work.
 
P

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

Imagine if you can a force of japanese soldiers attempting to fight their way inland through our coastal mountains and FORESTS, with a bunch of pissed off country boys (and girls) in their way?

They'd be lucky to make the willamette valley.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top