The true history of gun control - Timeline

[0121stockpicker]

Seem to recall Hitler murdered 6 million jews and 7 million other people after lining them up and basically disarming them.

So you believe that the Jewish community in Germany was well armed when hitler came to power?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

Seem to recall Hitler murdered 6 million jews and 7 million other people after lining them up and basically disarming them.

What are the conclusions you draw from the Warsaw uprising?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

There were lots of guns all through south east asia including Cambodia, the French-Indochina war introduced it ay end of WWII till 1954 and U.S. was supplying arms to the Cambodian government after the end of the Indochina war at the request of the Cambodia government. Cambodia government outlaw private guns in about 1956 and when Khmer rouge took power in 1975 the people had no way to defend their selves.

 

[GrizLeeBear]

For those who mentioned Hitler on guns:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

 

[0121stockpicker]

I think Stocky's and Dano's point is that the Jews were never armed to begin with. Let me go stepwise again.
1. Jews were never armed.
2. Article is based on correlation and not causality.
3. Had the Jews been armed they would have fought back.
4. Prove TH's points on why every citizen should be armed.
5. Prove Stocky and Dano's point that this is a crappy article and argument.
6. Everybody gets riled up because somebody makes a comparison to Hitler.
7. I point out that is unfair to compare our president to Hitler.
8. All chaos ensues.

Again, if you disagree with a point please cite the point and the reason.

And to wit I would put forth the example of the armed Jewish resistance known as the Warsaw uprising which while heroic ended in the death of all participants.

And my conclusion would actually be different which would be an armed Jewish population would NOT have been able to defend itself against the German state. I'm not saying that one should not fight back and take take enemy down with them. But I am stated that it would not have prevented their deaths.

I

 

[0121stockpicker]

There were lots of guns all through south east asia including Cambodia, the French-Indochina war introduced it ay end of WWII till 1954 and U.S. was supplying arms to the Cambodian government after the end of the Indochina war at the request of the Cambodia government. Cambodia government outlaw private guns in about 1956 and when Khmer rouge took power in 1975 the people had no way to defend their selves.

TH - if you believe that the above is a well written argument that definitely proves a point than that's perfectly fine. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and that is your right.

Many of us here are not trying to change your world view or political ideology. I think we are just trying to give helpful hints on critical thinking which would benefit anyone regardless of political ideology or topic being discussed. It's simply just a good life practice. Best.

 

[Dave44]

Fact: The main purpose of guns is to protect and kill.
Fact: We live in a society where we have the power to kill each other at will.
Fact: Neither being armed or not armed guarantees survival.
Fact: Being armed increases chances of survival in a gun fight.
Fact: Bullets piercing flesh, fired by humans, kills people.
Fact: Not everybody agrees on what are appropriate regulations for guns.
Fact: We all live together in society.

Opinion: We need to compromise on gun control.
Opinion: We can have no compromise on gun control.
Opinion: We are heading towards a civil war with massive bloodshed.
Opinion: We are not worried about a government takeover.

Fact: If we don't work together we work against each other.
Fact: If we work against each other we are less likely to find a peaceful solution.
Fact: If we do not find a peaceful solution people die.
Fact: Guns will be involved in these deaths.

Best regards,
Crispin

Ps. KarenD, is this another one of my childish schoolyard replies? I made it serious for ya...just to let ya know that I can roll!

Mr Crispy,
I was away for a bit and you have so much subterfuge it is hard to get at all of it.

Let me say what is obvious, especially to you? Do you believe that human nature can overcome itself? Do you believe that there are may be a couple of Jeffery Dahmer types out there that do not care if you are comfortable in the basement?
Do you really think that disarming someone will protect them from someone with a stone? Or 3 with 3 sticks?


I have said this before, and I am sure it was deleted. The Star Trek series was the perfect utopian society populated by evolved species that needed nothing but the work they were assigned, but they even thought they may have to defend themselves occasionally, usually after an expendable cast member.

This show was not historical fact by the way, and completely ignored the fact that not everyone is a nice person.

I would think you have seen this, but maybe you have not seen evil yet. Please be prepared for that eventuality.
Good luck to your future.

By the way, the Jews in Germany believed they never needed to protect themselves, they were in a highly evolved society and there was no way they were in any danger. Why would they have needed guns? The guns were taken from everyone else who would have fought.

(the Warsaw Uprising) A few larger uprisings that included moral human beings would have helped alot. And The ones that were killed in the uprising suffered a much more humane murder than the ones rounded up and degraded before their murder!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Fact 1. "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

Fact 2. They will continue to come after our guns, their goal is no guns at all.

Fact 3. We Will Never Give Up Our Guns, I'm Done Compromising On Our Rights.

Fact 4. See Fact 1.

 

[bill from lachine]

Crispin,

You're being lucid and rational again....I prefer when Friday nights roll around and you have some Guinness and sick Eva on your antagonists....how did I do

Stocky and Dave44: It is interesting to read the back and forth between the two of you. Let me see if I can take a whack at summing things up. If either of you disagree please cite the point and why.
1. Stocky thinks this is a poorly written article.
2. It is a poorly written article because it relies on the fallacy of correlation = causality.
3. We all agree this is how the article is written.
4. Dave44 responds by pointing out that Stocky provided no facts to the contrary.
5. Stocky responded by saying he was not trying to prove anything but simply disprove the original article.
6. Repeat points 4 and 5 a few times.
7. Dano tries to make sense of things but everybody ignores him because he is British.
8. Enter Crispin.

How did I do?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Fact 1. "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

Fact 2. They will continue to come after our guns, their goal is no guns at all.

Fact 3. We Will Never Give Up Our Guns, I'm Done Compromising On Our Rights.

Fact 4. See Fact 1.

This response is what 302 would describe as the "na na boo boo poo poo" response. Hopefully I quoted correctly 302. It obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Havnt you ever participated in a formal debate?

 

[Dave44]

We all agree that it is correlation versus casualty? That's rich anyway. Who is we? Where is any facts to the contrary? Sounds like you are saying fate would have murdered these populations either way. Isn't that religion?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Mr Crispy,
I was away for a bit and you have so much subterfuge it is hard to get at all of it.

Let me say what is obvious, especially to you? Do you believe that human nature can overcome itself? Do you believe that there are may be a couple of Jeffery Dahmer types out there that do not care if you are comfortable in the basement?
Do you really think that disarming someone will protect them from someone with a stone? Or 3 with 3 sticks?

I have said this before, and I am sure it was deleted. The Star Trek series was the perfect utopian society populated by evolved species that needed nothing but the work they were assigned, but they even thought they may have to defend themselves occasionally, usually after an expendable cast member.

This show was not historical fact by the way, and completely ignored the fact that not everyone is a nice person.

I would think you have seen this, but maybe you have not seen evil yet. Please be prepared for that eventuality.
Good luck to your future.

By the way, the Jews in Germany believed they never needed to protect themselves, they were in a highly evolved society and there was no way they were in any danger. Why would they have needed guns? The guns were taken from everyone else who would have fought.

(the Warsaw Uprising) A few larger uprisings that included moral human beings would have helped alot. And The ones that were killed in the uprising suffered a much more humane murder than the ones rounded up and degraded before their murder!

Dave this statement - "By the way, the Jews in Germany believed they never needed to protect themselves, they were in a highly evolved society and there was no way they were in any danger. " is just completely completely incorrect and is very insulting to anyone with relative that perished to the nazi regime. Jewish people and other so called undesirables had been fleeing Germany for years before they were rounded up. How can you throw out a statement like that. It has absolutely no basis in fact what so ever.

Do you believe if ever member of the Jewish population had been armed that they would have defeated the German state? If we revise history how do you believe it would have played out?

 

[Crispin]

Mr Crispy,
I was away for a bit and you have so much subterfuge it is hard to get at all of it.

Let me say what is obvious, especially to you? Do you believe that human nature can overcome itself? Do you believe that there are may be a couple of Jeffery Dahmer types out there that do not care if you are comfortable in the basement?
Do you really think that disarming someone will protect them from someone with a stone? Or 3 with 3 sticks?


I have said this before, and I am sure it was deleted. The Star Trek series was the perfect utopian society populated by evolved species that needed nothing but the work they were assigned, but they even thought they may have to defend themselves occasionally, usually after an expendable cast member.

This show was not historical fact by the way, and completely ignored the fact that not everyone is a nice person.

I would think you have seen this, but maybe you have not seen evil yet. Please be prepared for that eventuality.
Good luck to your future.

By the way, the Jews in Germany believed they never needed to protect themselves, they were in a highly evolved society and there was no way they were in any danger. Why would they have needed guns? The guns were taken from everyone else who would have fought.

(the Warsaw Uprising) A few larger uprisings that included moral human beings would have helped alot. And The ones that were killed in the uprising suffered a much more humane murder than the ones rounded up and degraded before their murder!

Welcome back Dave! I noticed you had been out for a little bit. You were missed. Can you post things as fact or opinion so I know which is which?
Thanks,
Crispin

 

[Dave44]

Ahhh Stocky, are you saying a miserably torturous death was preferable to defending oneself?
By the way, it is true that many fled, seeing the writing on the wall. And then, you will love this if you are paying attn to current events, You could leave as long as you left most of what you had. You are making an absolute statement yourself that you are in the right. Why is that ?

 

[Crispin]

We all agree that it is correlation versus casualty? That's rich anyway. Who is we? Where is any facts to the contrary? Sounds like you are saying fate would have murdered these populations either way. Isn't that religion?

No Dave, listen and learn.

Drinking coffee causes cancer. I can show you ample statistics that show higher rates of all types of cancer in people who drink coffee. So, we can conclude that coffee causes cancer, right?
WRONG, people who drink coffee are much more likely to smoke cigs. Cigs cause cancer. See the difference: coffee and cancer = correlation, cigs and cancer = causality.

Now apply to this situation, guns banned and millions of my fellow jews died. Makes sense, right? Guns being banned causes Jews to die, right?
WRONG, correlation. Hitler being a genocidial monster caused jews to be killed. Guns taken and jews dying = correlation, hitler being genocidial monster and jews dying = causality.

This is simple logic. If you can't agree with this then I cannot continue the conversation. Afterall, one cannot have a logical conversation with an illogical person.

 

[Crispin]

Fact 1. "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

Fact 2. They will continue to come after our guns, their goal is no guns at all.

Fact 3. We Will Never Give Up Our Guns, I'm Done Compromising On Our Rights.

Fact 4. See Fact 1.

Fact: Your mind is made up.
Fact: My mind is not made up.
Fact: Your belief leads to death and bloodshed.
Fact: My way leaves all possibilities open.

Opinion: I'm starting to think some people are looking forward to civil war.
Fact: Self-fulfilling prophecies exist.

If you are resigned to death then stock pile your guns and stand to one side. Give the rest of us a chance to find peace with this situation. You have already stated you will never surrender your guns anyway, what is the harm in letting us try?

Best,
Crispin

 

[0121stockpicker]

We all agree that it is correlation versus casualty? That's rich anyway. Who is we? Where is any facts to the contrary? Sounds like you are saying fate would have murdered these populations either way. Isn't that religion?

We would be anyone with an education. This is 101. It's like debating whether 1+1is 2. Havnt you ever taken a logic or critical thinking class or participated in formal debates. These are very common term and concepts.

 

[Dano Sverige]

Fact 1. "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed." Already has been and will be!

Fact 2. They will continue to come after our guns, their goal is no guns at all. If it's what they want it'll be what they do!

Fact 3. We Will Never Give Up Our Guns, I'm Done Compromising On Our Rights. You'll do as you're told, one way or the other!

Fact 4. See Fact 1. Fact 1 has probably been torn up by this point!

 

[Dave44]

Really Mr Crispin? You said I was illogical?
I am having a hard time with the thought that Jews would not have wanted to defend themselves, but that may be an entirely American idea.

And did you just prove my point that there ARE evil people who want to kill you for some weird reason or another? Why go gentle into that "good" night?
Thank you for the original welcome.
By the way, I am squarely behind Israel and the right to exist, and defend themselves.

Popular theory according to wiki, whatever, try not to attack me with offhand remarks please, I am not trying to offend you personally.
Jewish Bolshevism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[0121stockpicker]

Ahhh Stocky, are you saying a miserably torturous death was preferable to defending oneself?
By the way, it is true that many fled, seeing the writing on the wall. And then, you will love this if you are paying attn to current events, You could leave as long as you left most of what you had. You are making an absolute statement yourself that you are in the right. Why is that ?

Not at all. The premise of the article was somehow that these genocides would have been averted/prevented if the populations were armed wasn't it? I believe that is an incorrect conclusion. I belief death would have happened under either scenario. If you don't believe this is the case than propose a logical outcome.

If you wish to start discussion a different topic on whether it is better to die while fighting as opposed to not we can certainly do that but it is an entirely different topic to what the article proposes - correct.

And for the record - yes I also would choose to take some down with me. I will also propose that it is impossible to say how one would act unless one is actually put in that situation.