A Little Gun History

[PackinMama]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" width="100%">A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=postbody colSpan=2>I Thought you might find this interesting . . .

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 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 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 ELDER LY. 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.

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

Washington D.C. has the most gun control laws and one of the highest gun related murder rates in the country. They also do not have the death penalty. Texas has the least gun control laws and one of the lowest gun related murder rates in the nation, they also have an express lane to the electric chair.

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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Bigiron]

But, but, but....can't we just call 911? (being facetious).

[PackinMama]

That's funny! I live in the hills pretty far from any town.......it takes the police 40 to 60 minutes to respond to anything out here. If we're not prepared to defend ourselves we're in serious trouble because calling 911 is a joke!

[Fallguy]

That's funny! I live in the hills pretty far from any town.......it takes the police 40 to 60 minutes to respond to anything out here. If we're not prepared to defend ourselves we're in serious trouble because calling 911 is a joke!

I hear ya....see my sig line...

[Mike.357]

in the hills pretty far from any town.......it takes the police 40 to 60 minutes to respond to anything out here.

Not to worry for you if Obama is elcted. Even his wife said it would be alright for people in a rural area to own a hunting rifle.

here is the story, i read it in the News Sentinel

But the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate added a new wrinkle Saturday night while campaigning in conservative-leaning western Iowa, when he said his Chicago-native wife, Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

Here was Obama's discussion of gun ownership and his wife's thoughts during a campaign stop at a middle school:

"We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/obama_my_wife_sees_need_for_ru.html

so we are good to go with this guy

Edited January 31, 2008 by Mike.357

[Guest nj.piney]

i dont call 911 i call uzi,its nearby.

[towerclimber37]

Not to worry for you if Obama is elcted. Even his wife said it would be alright for people in a rural area to own a hunting rifle.

I'm so happy that she thinks so!

I also think that when it comes time for them to take them from me, we're going to have a "discussion" about it. then, if they win, they'll get the ONE firearm that I actually own

[Guest jackdog]

Gee Tower you only own one fire Arm. That is sad.

[Guest jackdog]

Packing Momma thans for the info it was a good read.

[Guest TargetShooter84]

Good information!

[Guest canynracer]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" width="100%">A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=postbody colSpan=2>I Thought you might find this interesting . . .

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 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 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 ELDER LY. 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.

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

Washington D.C. has the most gun control laws and one of the highest gun related murder rates in the country. They also do not have the death penalty. Texas has the least gun control laws and one of the lowest gun related murder rates in the nation, they also have an express lane to the electric chair.

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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

nice...

I think I will tattoo this on my back....so when the are getting my gun from my dead hand whle I lay face down, they will understand why I fought.

[Guest C4Dave]

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but the information about Australia is misleading, and parts are inaccurate.

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

As pro-gun advocates, we need to make sure the information we provide is accurate or we will lose credibility.

[threeshot]

Agreed C4Dave. I would like to know the source of the other items before anyone begins claiming them as factual.

[PackinMama]

Sorry guys, I got this in an email from my brother (who is also into guns and gun rights)......I just assumed it was correct and I thought it was pretty cool. I suppose I should never assume anything. If any of you would like to post the correct stats that would be excellent

Well...I just read the Snopes link about the Australian gun ban and am not too impressed.......It makes me wonder if the writers at Snopes are Anti gun????? That's just my

Edited February 2, 2008 by PackinMama

[Im Neero]

I read the same thing at Snopes, Mama. They don't discount anything, they just go on a tangent about how statistics can be manipulated. It looks like something that the Brady Campaign would write.

[PackinMama]

I read the same thing at Snopes, Mama. They don't discount anything, they just go on a tangent about how statistics can be manipulated. It looks like something that the Brady Campaign would write.

Exactly Neero! Thanks for backing me up

[towerclimber37]

Title: Austrailian Gun Ban Results

Source: email

URL Source: http://none

Published: Apr 22, 2005

Author: Ed Chenel

Post Date: 2005-04-22 10:09:12 by RussKon45

2 Comments

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: 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 criminals still possess their guns!)

apparently this was written by a flatfoot in austrailia.

I believe that its' accurate.

I'll do more digging and update as I find out more..

[towerclimber37]

found some more information straight from the aussie government. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/

funny, the statistics stop in 1996 and their administrations don't record robberies that were committed at gunpoint.

I guess there, the best way to keep the people docile without their firearms is to deny them the information needed to make a reasoned decision.

*sigh* don't you just LOVE the nanny state?

[Guest jackdog]

ya really think they would do something like that

[towerclimber37]

actually,

I do think they would do that.

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

Looks to me like the Australian police officer simply repeated what was said in the uncomfirmed stats in the chain e-mail. Word-for-word.

Snopes typically has their sources of information linked to their responses. What they show (sources) makes sense to me.

Just like the people that claim more people are killed with their own guns or a family member is killed with their gun. Well that isn't true, but they twist the numbers to make the stats lean that way.

My own policy is, don't believe what you read in chain e-mails without verifying it for yourself. If it can't be verified, trash it.

Edited February 3, 2008 by TNDixieGirl

[towerclimber37]

Looks to me like the Australian police officer simply repeated what was said in the uncomfirmed stats in the chain e-mail.

I think he's not repeating it. he's the originator of the email.

Pro gun folks got it when Russkon45 posted it to some forum..and they passed it around.

hey C4 dave, you're kinda wrong. I hate to say it...but pull the beam out of your eye before you go after mama's splinter.. but your wisdom is sound...always do your homework. only this time, snopes WAS a bit biased.

I saw the graph because I did a bunch of research about that stuff last night trying to get the latest figures

the nearest I can figure is that they stopped demographing home invasions, armed robberies etc.. in 2006.

they now only record crimes such as "robbery", murder, rape, etc

they no longer tell you if the assailant was armed with a firearm.

thats handy!

I guess one would have to do hard research to find out.

Edited February 3, 2008 by towerclimber37

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

If you'll check deeper into it, there isn't even any proof that Ed Chenel is an Australian police officer.

And supposedly, his e-mail was only made aware to pro-gun groups in April of 2005?? Well this particular e-mail has been in question since 2001, so how does that figure out evenly? The gun buy-back was in 1997. So even if the claim was made in 2001, how is that 12 months since the Australians were banned?

I agree with the guy with the beam in his eye. We HAVE to make sure of our facts before spreading them if we want to be believable. There's just way too much that can be skewed in this particular type chain mail to sound trustworthy.

Edited February 3, 2008 by TNDixieGirl

[fury2neon]

they now only record crimes such as "robbery", murder, rape, etc

they no longer tell you if the assailant was armed with a firearm.

thats handy!

I guess one would have to do hard research to find out.

Thats a typical liberal tactic, if the facts don't fit your agenda change what facts are collected and allowed to be used.

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

packinmama,

I just want to clarify that in no way does my opinion of this e-mail reflect on my opinion of you. You didn't write the thing after all. I've just grown skeptical over the years about passing along info that sounds great on the surface, but isn't able to be verified as accurate facts. Most have been manipulated to fit an agenda. And both sides are guilty of it. Democrats/Republicans, liberals/conservatives, north/south, whites/blacks and on and on and on.