Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 170. (Read 450482 times)

Great statistics. Thank you.

I have read that in the 1900s approximately 200 million people were "exterminated," worldwide, by their own governments. For whatever reasons, these people were not able to protect themselves from their own government. I'm not going to dig up links. Anybody can research it if they are interested.

While the gun issue may be important in all this extermination, the real issue is that, it is often the governments that do it to their own people. These are governments we are talking about here. And this brings us to an irony in America.

In America, it isn't government doing the exterminating of its own people. Rather, it is the common people doing the exterminating. Without getting into picky details, over the 1900s the common people in America exterminated approximately 50 million of their own citizens. How did they do it? By intentionally aborting their baby children.

The only saving factor for Americans might be - and I don't have a clue as to the statistics on this - that there are probably many other nations doing abortions, as well. Some of them may even be worse than America, except if you start talking about America as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

It's actually amazing that we are still having this debate.  Given that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right, yet everyone knows that the left wants to find snarky ways around it, and does not care about constitutional rights.

At the core, the issue is not gun rights but the simple rule of law, or not.

follow the uk and bad them all

A Little Gun History Lesson


 
*  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.  This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine.
 
 
*  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, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS.  Hundreds of thousands died as a result. 
 
 
* 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. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million
 
 
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 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 at a bare minimum.
 
* 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:
 
Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent
 
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent
 
Australia-wide, armed robberies went 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.
 
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.
 
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first  year after gun confiscation...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 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 him of this history lesson.
 
With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".
 
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED.
 
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country.
 
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.
 
 
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends.


http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm

I'll certainly try.  There are horses nearby and I could probably only do it if they were out on a walk.  The other ridge lines have to many trees.  I will practice on shooting up-hill to make sure I am proficient at doing so in case the opportunity presents itself.  There are other places on my property where I could take elk but I kind of want them to feel safe in those whereas the preferred ridge leads directly down to my and my neighbor's pastures and orchards where I don't really want the them there anyway.

Are you able to get a couple practice shots off, maybe one every couple of days, to get it sighted in?  Maybe a target up on the ridge?

I think people should be able to have basic weapons for self defense.

I'm not enough of a boozer (yet) to where that should be a problem, but I can pretty much promise that I'll have a pinch of Grizzly Green between my cheek and gum.  Always do.  Being a man-sized man I don't believe I'd have much trouble remaining on my feet, but I'll be trying to use a rest since I'm not that great of a shot.  The ridgeline is about 400 yards.


That article is a keeper.  I'd want to research some of the facts before relying on them in an argument.  To bad there are no obvious footnotes.

I would only add to your comment (bolded) that police officers in many jurisdictions only fire a box of shells a year, but sure, they still present a deadly force to the crazy shooter.  But any sport shooter is likely doing thousands of rounds routinely.  And the average concealed carry individual, say some woman who once had an issue with an assault or rape, and then started carrying, also presents a deadly force to the crazy shooter.

Reality of the situation is that the US citizen is hostage to a Federal Rule that creates local situational danger where such "No gun zones" are designated.

I believe this is correct, that it's a federal rule about the schools being "no gun zones."  In other cases, though it can be from the right of a business owner under state law to put up his "no gun zone" sign.  The oppressive rule, though, is the federal rule.  At least that's my opinion....it's not right to have a federal law that we must take our kids to "SCHOOL X" and then another federal rule that they must be rendered defenseless there.

Except more and more we're finding out they do 1) own guns 2) employ men with guns 3) use their guns to commit violent crimes 4) fail to control their own guns which are then criminally or accidentally fired.

The problem isn't guns, the problem is people.  Joe Rogan likes to point out that the US has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.  Most of my friend's and I are gun owners.  We hunt or target shoot or, in my case, carry for protection when I'm out in the middle of the Mojave desert (never know what or who you'll run into in the wild, wild west).  Normal, well balanced, educated gun owners are an asset to civilized society.  Crazy people, especially crazy people with guns, is a problem.

But several of the recent shooting could have been, maybe not prevented, but the casualties greatly reduced had there been a properly trained and armed gun owner present.  In one situation at a school there were several off-duty police officers who were forced to leave their guns in their vehicles because the school is a "no gun zone".  Well obviously no one pointed out that sign to the crazy guy with a gun who shot a bunch of people.  Had the off-duty law enforcement been properly armed they could have subdued the situation immediately.

I am often dumbstruck by the fact that the majority of people calling for "gun control" do not own and have never owned firearms themselves.

The practical evidence of this is seen in various cities and areas around the world. In the States, in Chicago, there are places where the police fear going because of the gun freedom existing there.

There are States in lower Mexico that are some of the safest places in the world, if you follow and obey cartel law. The cartels work with the people and the people are protected by the cartels. Even the Mexican military dreads going down there.

It's all about guns.

Standing?  So you are going to have to put the beer down?



All those people shouting for gun control need to look at the science.

Like this -

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

...more firearms, less crime....

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#eJB0Tbj7173AvUcu.99

Unless, of course, they want to be branded Science Deniers!

On guns...I bought a 300 win mag today but have yet to get it in my grubby dick-skiners since I had to special order the thing.  Will be a nice addition to my growing gun collection, and quasi-necessary to utilize my land-owner preference elk tags.  I hope to take the creature from the ridge line while standing in my yard, and this caliber seems like it will be up to the task.  Furthermore, since I have like 4 months to fill my tags, I hope to analyze the herd for a while and pick out a nice tender subordinate cow.  The Fish-n-Game dude would prefer smaller herds in my area for reasons associated with carrying capacity, and if one avoids taking the lead cow then the herd is not disrupted at all.

This is a nice time to thank Visa and PayPal for trying to tell me how I could and could not spend my money in conjunction with Wikileaks, and to Wikileaks for stumbling across Bitcoin as a way to skirt the financial blockade (in addition to a range of other useful info such as the text to the TPP which only multi-national corporations are supposed to be able to see.)  That was how I heard about Bitcoin, and the happy accident of fate has resulted in fun toys like my new Savage to raining down on my head.

Absolutely right!

If they are so scared of private property among people, are they going to take our cars away? Are we going to have to eat without spoons, forks and knives? We won't have chairs any longer because somebody might tear a leg off a chair and use it for a club? What about fists?; no more fists.

The answer is to place us all in strait-jackets so that we can't harm each other, or ourselves.

No! Wait. What about the ones who place us into strait-jackets? They can still go out and be violent with each other and us.

The answer >> Build robots that place every last human into a strait-jacket, and then feed us and wipe our backside afterward. Nobody can ever hurt anybody ever again.

I think it is our right to be allowed to have guns. I don't think they should take our guns away I think that would be a very bad idea. The main point is a killer will get access to a gun or something that causes harm no matter what.

Yes, we regulate cars heavily.  We check for adequate vision, administer written and road tests, impose restrictions for criminals or the disabled, etc.  And we still have tons of DUIs and related accidents/deaths. 

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#CZtrxm2XgWDkPsFV.99

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

...more firearms, less crime....

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#eJB0Tbj7173AvUcu.99

No. You have the right to own a gun.   

Interesting opinion, I'd only like to point out that determining what's "right" based on what's "done" cannot be an objective opinion, nor is it a historically accurate indicator. The underlying problem boils down to a much more basic question, which is at the root of any desire to ask the aforementioned question... "As a society, how can society decide who should be included in society?" Delegating rights among members of society creates subcultures, and inequalities, leading towards fatal vulnerabilities which ultimately will inevitably sap the production of and destroy the entire society...

If bad actors in society are able to rot the core of said society; rather than extinguishing and smothering the whole society by excessive (costly) regulation, shouldn't the bad actors simply be expelled, and society be allowed to prosper? Since money is a number defining the production (work) of society, shouldn't society be allowed to work efficiently with the lowest resistance possible? Regulation is inherently inefficient...

Based on this assertion, if an actors actions are bad enough to warrant expulsion from society, they additionally would've been disqualified under the alternate societal structure where their rights could have been delegated away from them... The difference is the cost of each process on the society, as well as the risk-reward ratio of becoming a bad actor in society...

Just food for thought...