Gun control chain e-mail found to be ridiculous...
I just got forwarded a long e-mail entitled "A little gun history lesson" full of nonsense about the historical effects of gun control. I am not very much a conservative or "liberal" on this issue. But this e-mail is probably the most ridiculous collection of pro-gun arguments I have ever seen. If you want to read it first, scroll down to the blue text.
The problem I have with the e-mail is the fallacy of assuming that something that happens first is the cause of whatever happens later. Just looking at the first example: I suppose there might have been some new law about guns in 1929. But Russians were not commonly armed before then to my knowledge. Saying that that is why 20 million "dissidents" (a ridiculous term for entire population groups) were rounded up and exterminated is a bit silly. And it assumes that no "dissidents" were exterminated before then - which is not the case. And did the Soviets then liberalize gun laws in 1953 - and therefor the mass exterminations were no longer possible? Please. The Turkish example seems _at least_ if not more absurd - as if some 1911 laws disarmed an otherwise armed Armenian population by 1915. I could go on down the list. The idea that gun control prevented a Japanese invasion of the United States is probably the silliest claim of them all. I suspect the real reason the Japanese didn't invade the United States is that they were overstretched almost immediately after their early run of victories. They couldn't even take Midway, much less the rest of Hawaii. An invasion of the west coast was impossible.
Judging by the general logic and tone of the e-mail, I imagine some of it is completely made up (the dates of "gun control" for example). But I suppose all the numbers might be right - just the logic is flawed. The statistics on Australia are interesting: If gun control leads to higher crime, why does the country with the most liberal gun laws in the industrialized world have the highest rates of just about every kind of crime and the world's largest prison population to boot? Canada and Russia and India are ethnically diverse, so that can't be the reason. Is it the guns? Maybe. Maybe not.
Judging by what I can see on some internet forums, it would appear that not even all the pro-gun people are taking it seriously. Either way, it is not a serious contribution to the discussion of a serious issue.
Here's the e-mail:
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.
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, some 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, some 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:
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!
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, 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 information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely a 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 WW II.. 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 U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache to the. U.S.. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & 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!
The problem I have with the e-mail is the fallacy of assuming that something that happens first is the cause of whatever happens later. Just looking at the first example: I suppose there might have been some new law about guns in 1929. But Russians were not commonly armed before then to my knowledge. Saying that that is why 20 million "dissidents" (a ridiculous term for entire population groups) were rounded up and exterminated is a bit silly. And it assumes that no "dissidents" were exterminated before then - which is not the case. And did the Soviets then liberalize gun laws in 1953 - and therefor the mass exterminations were no longer possible? Please. The Turkish example seems _at least_ if not more absurd - as if some 1911 laws disarmed an otherwise armed Armenian population by 1915. I could go on down the list. The idea that gun control prevented a Japanese invasion of the United States is probably the silliest claim of them all. I suspect the real reason the Japanese didn't invade the United States is that they were overstretched almost immediately after their early run of victories. They couldn't even take Midway, much less the rest of Hawaii. An invasion of the west coast was impossible.
Judging by the general logic and tone of the e-mail, I imagine some of it is completely made up (the dates of "gun control" for example). But I suppose all the numbers might be right - just the logic is flawed. The statistics on Australia are interesting: If gun control leads to higher crime, why does the country with the most liberal gun laws in the industrialized world have the highest rates of just about every kind of crime and the world's largest prison population to boot? Canada and Russia and India are ethnically diverse, so that can't be the reason. Is it the guns? Maybe. Maybe not.
Judging by what I can see on some internet forums, it would appear that not even all the pro-gun people are taking it seriously. Either way, it is not a serious contribution to the discussion of a serious issue.
Here's the e-mail:
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.
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, some 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, some 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:
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!
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, 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 information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely a 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 WW II.. 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 U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache to the. U.S.. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & 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!
mhatlie - 2. Apr, 21:52 Topic: U.S. society and politics http://hatlie.twoday.net/stories/5623493/
I agree that making the correlations it does is absurd, and why I wanted to research it so I could reply to my mother (who forwarded it to me). However, you rebutted with this very same flaw in correlation:
You said: "If gun control leads to higher crime, why does the country with the most liberal gun laws in the industrialized world have the highest rates of just about every kind of crime and the world's largest prison population to boot?"
I appreciate that you said "Maybe, maybe not" in reference to if guns were the cause, but indeed, the higher crime rates correlate with stricter gun gun laws when you break regions down. In a short example... Wash. D.C and Chicago have the strictest gun control laws... and the highest crime rates. By region, more relaxed gun laws have lower crime rates.
What you did was take the entire U.S. general position on gun laws which is 'liberal', and applied that label of 'liberal' to the ALL regions of United States, including the strict regions such as D.C. and Chicago.
So, even though the inverse correlation can be made, I won't use said correlation to imply as you have that high gun control laws cause higher crime rates. Here's another correlation that could be made that is flawed: Areas more entrenched in Christianity have less crime then more secular cities. Therefore, Christianity lowers crime.
Right, but...
But again, I have the impression from the data I have seen that there is little correlation - other than when we compare whole nation states.
I agree with the e-mail