Gun Control Statistics to Remember

Y

Back on topic... Perseus, this argument has been made on here so many times it's not even funny. In fact, we could probably manage to get this thread locked, because there are exact copies buried in the forum archives. The fact remains that criminals will have guns, no matter what. So what good does it do the common people of the United States to take away what could be their only method of true defense? Like my dad always says "Never bring a knife to a gun fight.... Unless you're James Bond."

Now, I don't mean that guns should be on the shelves next to the peanut butter, but I don't believe that we should get rid of guns in households. I'm a social moderate. I'm for some control, but not total control. Just take a look at that Marine who took care of those robbers. Wouldn't have happened without a firearm. And guess what? He was properly registered and knew how to use it. THAT'S what I ask. Knowledge is power... Especially when it comes to dangerous weapons. Proper background checks are a must, IMHO. No one crazy person should be able to get a handgun just because he has a license. Thorough inspection of a persons psyche should be utilized, especially with concealable weapons. But other than that, why should we get rid of our guns?

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

That's just it, nobody is suggest we get rid of guns, except a few radicals on the left of no consequence. The idea to ban guns is simply paranoia, and given the number of gunowners: political suicide. The idea that there is this huge movement to abolish the 2nd Amendment is simply false. What the democrats propose is a control of guns much like we control cars and other such things. You can have a car but there are certain rules, and not every car is good for every situation.

There needs to be tighter control, you mentioned a waiting period I agree. But there also needs to be a tighter control of gun vendors and manufactuers as well. The Ring of Fire for example is an industry that caters to the criminal element, its even marketed for it. These are use once then toss away guns. No law abiding gun owner would ever purchase such as substand POS, even on the tightest of budgets.

I was just listening to the Chief of police in Mexico city who was saying that gang members are getting arms that are legally bought (not stolen, purchased) in the US and then smuggled into Mexico. Someone needs to keep a closer eye on vendors. When a vender sell 40 guns a month (in Michigan) to a single client using a tradeshow loophole there is a problem. Anyone who buys 40 guns a month is up to something...

Also certain accessories too, I personally don't see any reason why any civilian should have a clip than more than 10 rounds. If you are defending yourself and you need more than 10 shots to do so, you probably shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The best handgun ever made, the Colt 1911 only has 7 shots and managed to survive 2 world wars.

Finally having lived in a huge metropolis most of my life, I can tell you than guns only compound big city problems. I have no issue with the country, towns, suburbs, etc. But inside city limits its trouble. And that's what the NRA doesnt seem to get, or they simply dont care.
 
The point is here that nearly all those mass killings were licensed weapons, would these guys have bothered to get an illegal weapon. Could they have done so with proper safeguards?

Banning guns would have little negative appeal to most of the electorate of the UK, and those who would be bothered are mainly right wing toffs.

Seems to me there are two types of gun crime the sort which gets the headlines when a nutter goes of his rocker and massacres 10 to 20 people, as above and the one off shooting which are often drug related gangland murders in the inner city areas. The latter would get firearms illegally (as they do with drugs) so banning guns won't affect things much there. However, they might stop killings in colleges and middle class districts.
 
Last edited:
There needs to be tighter control, you mentioned a waiting period I agree. But there also needs to be a tighter control of gun vendors and manufactuers as well. The Ring of Fire for example is an industry that caters to the criminal element, its even marketed for it. These are use once then toss away guns. No law abiding gun owner would ever purchase such as substand POS, even on the tightest of budgets.

I was just listening to the Chief of police in Mexico city who was saying that gang members are getting arms that are legally bought (not stolen, purchased) in the US and then smuggled into Mexico. Someone needs to keep a closer eye on vendors. When a vender sell 40 guns a month (in Michigan) to a single client using a tradeshow loophole there is a problem. Anyone who buys 40 guns a month is up to something...
Agreed. Records need to be kept on those who buy guns, and how much they buy, and HOW they buy them. Cash for a gun is semi-questionable.
mmarsh said:
Also certain accessories too, I personally don't see any reason why any civilian should have a clip than more than 10 rounds. If you are defending yourself and you need more than 10 shots to do so, you probably shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The best handgun ever made, the Colt 1911 only has 7 shots and managed to survive 2 world wars.
Well, clips aren't so much my worry as much as say... Silencers, though I do see what you mean... Silencers we can DEFINITELY do without. No one using a gun for it's intended purpose is going to need a silencer.

mmarsh said:
Finally having lived in a huge metropolis most of my life, I can tell you than guns only compound big city problems. I have no issue with the country, towns, suburbs, etc. But inside city limits its trouble. And that's what the NRA doesnt seem to get, or they simply dont care.
But see, that's the problem, inner city crime is FAR worse and FAR more common than suburbian crime. That's why I think it would be good to keep guns in the city... Perhaps stricter control in the city would be a good compromise?
 
Rob

Good point about Cash. That too is a indicator of criminal intent.

Yes silencers too, and things like bayonets and certain calibers like 2.5 ACP. Which has about as much defense value as a plastic knife. I heard a story of a woman during an asthma attack at night confused her 'mousegun' that she kept under her pillow with her inhaler...She survived.

I am not so sure that's true anymore, I think it very much depends on the city. The Suburbs can be pretty nasty places. I don't have any figures off hand but I would wager that places like suburbs like City of Compton, Long Beach, the Counties around Washington DC, have higher crime rates than the central downtown does. Newark, (although technically not NYC suburb) has a much higher crime rate than NYC. The suburbs around Atlanta are notorious, same with New Orleans from what i have heard..
 
Last edited:
Gun Control Statistics to Remember

Yes, this lesson give you History of the World credits. Read and heed.

While digesting this information, you might note that Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the officer responsible for planning and executing the militarily-brilliant and very tragic Pearl Harbor attack, was also asked to plan an invasion of the US West Coast.
When asked, he advised the military junta that ruled Japan that the task was impossible, because when landing in America, "there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass."
The fact that our citizens are armed has saved our bacon three times now:
The Revolutionary War - won on these soils
The War of 1812 - Won on these soils
World War Two - Won on foreign soils, thanks to the "riflemen behind every blade of grass".
Read the lesson below, then go to the range and practice. That's an order.

... 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, 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 laws to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian 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!) 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 the 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 American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
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.

5.65x 45mm is an expert on correlation statistics!!!! Brilliant analysis! I never thought that the major bloodbaths in world history could be so logically thought through. Amazing!
 
5.56 information is deeply flawed, he is comparing civilian gun control to military campaigns fought by professional soldiers. Its absurd. His history and use of quotes is either misinterpreted or flat wrong.

Take Yamamoto speach, Yamamoto was referring to US Soldiers, not armed civilians. The wars he cites as being won by civilians:

The Revolutionary War -won by Militias AND a Continental Army AND our French Allies. Its extemely doubtful the Militias would have won the war on their own. The victories were mostly due to partisan tactics or superior numbers. Every time the militias faced the British Army alone on equal setting its the British who won.

The War of 1812 - (huh???, We lost most of the battles, took greater losses, and had our Capital captured and burned by an enemy force, but other than that it was a brilliant victory. The biggest battle we won was fought after the peace treaty was signed. Since after the Revolution Congress had dissolved the Continental army, the battles we lost were fought mostly by militias against British Army Regulars.

The US Civil War - The Confederate Army was made of civilians with little or no military training and faced a professionally trained Union Army. The Confederacy got its ass kicked.

World War Two - Won on foreign soils, thanks to the "riflemen behind every blade of grass". (again, thanks a professional military armed civilians had nothing to do with it).

So history has taught us that citizen-soldiers (militias) fair pretty badly against professional armies. So to suggest that even if the populations were armed to the teeth they would have spared extermination is prosperous. The only example I can think of this is the Warsaw uprising in 1944 where Polish Jews resisted the Nazis for 3 weeks. A valiant effort, but in the end the result was exactly the same. The germans brought in heavy weapons and the jews were wiped out to a man.

The fact remains that no civilian based militia can defeat a modern military. They lack training, equipment, numbers, and firepower. If American militias were to face a professional army they wouldnt last a minute. They would be dead even before they made contact. Its just fantasy to suggest otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Rob

Good point about Cash. That too is a indicator of criminal intent.

Yes silencers too, and things like bayonets and certain calibers like 2.5 ACP. Which has about as much defense value as a plastic knife. I heard a story of a woman during an asthma attack at night confused her 'mousegun' that she kept under her pillow with her inhaler...She survived.
Oh my... That's terrible....
mmarsh said:
I am not so sure that's true anymore, I think it very much depends on the city. The Suburbs can be pretty nasty places. I don't have any figures off hand but I would wager that places like suburbs like City of Compton, Long Beach, the Counties around Washington DC, have higher crime rates than the central downtown does. Newark, (although technically not NYC suburb) has a much higher crime rate than NYC. The suburbs around Atlanta are notorious, same with New Orleans from what i have heard..
Well, some are, yes... But when I think suburbia, I think of the country. The original suburbs, or perhaps a small town. I come from a suburb of one of the top 2 largest cities in Alabama... Huntsville has completely surrounded us, but I'd still rather live in Madison than Huntsville... It's like as soon as you cross the city limits, there is a different air about... Like people feel an obligation to be bad in the city. And of course, it also depends on the city you're talking about... I wouldn't doubt it with Atlanta, or New Orleans, but the outskirts of Birmingham are, for the most part, much safer than the heart of the city.
 
Words from the Founding Fathers

Now words from the Founding Fathers of this Nation

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


By thes very words we can see the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. That every free man have a weapon in defense of Freedom. The Fathers of this Country had a distrust of goverments and with good reason, a disarmed populace is at the every whim of a goverment turned tyrant that will not listen to the people who also have the right to abolish said goverment if this happened.

The Second Admendment is not about hunting or collecting, it is above all staying free and free men possesing weapons keeps the goverment in line if they should think otherwise.

[T]he Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing."[10] This statement is particularly applicable to the right to keep and bear arms, which has been recognized as a personal right for centuries.[11]

This is from Justice Brennan United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a Fourth Amendment case, the Court made clear that all law-abiding Americans are protected by the Second Amendment.

In Perpich v. Department of Defense, the Court recognized that the National Guard is part of the Armed Forces of the United States and that the Reserve Militia includes all able-bodied citizens.

"By contrast, in legislation dating to 1916, "the statute expressly provided that the Army of the United States should include not only 'the Regular Army,' but also 'the National Guard while in the service of the United States' ...."[19] (p.135)Today's National Guard came into being through exercise by Congress of the power to raise armies,[20] not the power to organize the militia.
The Court referred to "the traditional understanding of the militia as a part-time, nonprofessional fighting force,"[21] and as "a body of armed citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in time of peace."[22] The Court also recognized the existence of "all portions of the 'militia'--organized or not ...."[23]"

"In sum, it was clear enough to the Supreme Court in 1990 that "the people" in the Second Amendment means individuals generally, as it does in the rest of the Bill of Rights; that the "militia" means the body of armed citizens at large, organized and unorganized; and that the Second Amendment is not relevant to the power of a states to maintain the militia."

And This;
"By statutory definition, the National Guard is "that part of the organized militia of the several States" that is "armed ... wholly or partly at Federal expense" and "is federally recognized."[319] "In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State ... may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces."[320] The U.S. Government issues arms to the National Guard, but not to the states' defense forces.[321] "So far as practicable, the same types of ... arms ... as are issued to the Army shall be issued to the Army National Guard ...."[322]
The availability of uniform arms to a portion of the state militias pursuant to the National Defense Act of 1916 greatly enhanced defense capabilities. As explained in Maryland for the Use of Levin v. United States:[323]
From the days of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World War I, the various militias embodied the concept of a citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve force of the United States Armed Forces .... Pursuant to power vested in Congress by the Constitution [Art. I, section 8], the Guard was to be uniformed, equipped, and trained in much the same way as the regular army, subject to federal standards and capable of being "federalized" by units, rather than by drafting individual soldiers. In return, Congress authorized the allocation of federal equipment to the Guard ....[324]
The states are entitled to require members of their defense forces and reserve militias to provide themselves with the same arms which are used by the National Guard. The ideal of a uniformity of arms for all militia members has been recognized since the Constitution was framed.
Based on the above, Congress has no power to prohibit possession of such militia arms as the states are entitled to require that its citizens or a part thereof furnish themselves with and keep in their homes. The states' concurrent power to organize and provide for arming their militias is a reserved power which (p.204)federal legislation may not contradict."

The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html

Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

As we can see the National Guard is not the militia and was never ment to be.
Nor to my satification can the Constitution be amended to what kind of weapon we the people can possess. This would go against the orignal intent of the Constitution itself. When looking at the Constitution, everyone to include the courts and the Goverment must look at it from the standpoint of the Founding Fathers, period. This canot be changed.


This whole country began with resistance to gun control. The American Revolution began on the morning of April 19, 1775, when British troops marched on the road to Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, to seize the weapons and ammunition of the colonists. The colonists, much to the surprise of the British, fought back. The results of this action, fought at Concord Bridge, were the "shot heard 'round the world" against the tyranny of King George III, and the eventual independence of the United States.

The social contract which created the legal foundations for our Republic is called the Constitution of the United States. Appended to it is a Bill of Rights, which enumerates a list of some of the more important examples of our inalienable and inherent rights. These rights can not be "taken away", nor can these amendments be repealed without breaking the social contract that the Constitution embodies.



And I leave you with this from By Dean Alfange, From The Flying W Ranch, Colorado Springs, CO

My Creed

" I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave me—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say – ‘This, with God’s help, I have done.’ All this is what it means to be an American."

Not much else need be said.
 
The US Civil War - The Confederate Army was made of civilians with little or no military training and faced a professionally trained Union Army. The Confederacy got its ass kicked.

Interesting statement. Considering that during the height of the Civil War the Union Army was over twice the size of the Confederate Army.

Date
USA
CSA
January 1, 1861
(Regular army)
14,663
----------
July 1, 1861
186,751
112,040
January 1, 1862
527,204
258,680
March 31, 1862
533,984
-----------
June 30, 1862
----------
224,146
January 1, 1863
698,802
304,015
January 1, 1864
611,250
277,970
June 30, 1864
----------
194,764
January 1, 1865
620,924
196,764
March 31, 1865
657,747
----------
May 1, 1865
1,000,516
----------


Total Casulaties for both Sides:
Union:
Total casualties, 1861 to 1865
664,928

Confederate:
Total casualties, 1861 to 1865
483,026


http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm

Not a bad showing since, as marsh put it, they were poorly trained civilians fighting against a professional army.
 
There seems to be a total lack of understanding of the make up of United States Military.

First no major conflict the United States has ever been involved in was fought primarily with professional soldiers. Starting obviously with the revolution.
Massachusetts instituted a draft in 1776, The other 12 colonies followed soon after.

After the revolution there was no need for a draft until the Civil War.
The Union Army did have 92% volunteer force.
The South drafted about 21% of it force.

But it is well known that both sides were made up primarily of volunteers and draftees. As the standing Union Army at the beginning of the war had nothing like the numbers of men who served on either side.

World War I.
Draftees 2,810,296 which was 72% of the US Army. Draftees constituted 50% of the AEF in France. Draftee's KIA 14,460.

WWII
Draftees 10,110,104. This was 63% of all Americans who wore a uniform in WWII. (All services) Should be noted that almost all voluntary enlistments was stopped by the government in 1943 so that the manpower needs of all the services could be fulfilled.

Korea
Draftees August ,1950 to July 1953 1,569,141. For the entire era of the Korean War 30% of all those who served where draftees. By December 1952, 63% of the Army serving in Korea were drafted.

Vietnam
In the war's final Tally 648,500 draftee's(25% of the total) were among the 2.6 million Americans who were actually stationed on Vietnam's soil.
Draftee hostile deaths numbered 15,458 or 32.6% of all American combat fatalities.

The above data taken from a article in the January 2009 VFW magazine

My point is that the United States has never relied on "Professional Soldiers" to fight our wars. The closest we have come would be in todays conflicts, which still include a large number of reservists.

So mmarshs point of a professionally trained Union Army kicking the southern civilians asses is absurd. Both armies were lightly trained civilians.

A large number of the civilian population that volunteered, drafted or joined the services during the above conflicts would have had experience with guns before joining.

The revolutionary war was fought by militia at the outset giving time to form a "trained professional army" which was only slightly more disciplined and better trained than the militia.

The reason that our current government would not like to acknowledge militias and the right to keep and bear arms is:

Instead of a British Tyrant that might need to be overthrown when the government abuses its authority it would be the current regime.

But this in fact is the sole purpose of the founding fathers for including the 2ND Amendment in the BILL of Rights. Their own fear of a intrusive and restrictive government taking away control from the people.

Whether some think the people should be in charge or not in this day and age is not relevant, because our founding doctrine says the people are. Those that would like to restrict the rule of the people should be considered as subversives to the Constitution and the US form of goverment.
 
Back
Top