TomServo92 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Do you have a citation for the first paragraph? Dodd did sponsor the 1968 Act and he undoubtedly had some knowledge of pre-war German laws since he was Executive Trial Counsel for the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. I don't think you can show a connection. The '68 Act came about after the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy. Then there is the old saw that if only the Jews and others in Nazi Germany had guns, Hitler would have been stopped. Nonsense. None of the Nazi occupied countries in Europe with standing armies could stop Hitler. He came close to taking Russia and Great Britian. It is fantasy to believe that armed civilians could have done so when the government was popularly elected. The mass of the German people went along with Hitler. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm They lay out the parallels between the two. You're putting words in my mouth. I never stated the Jews could have stopped the Germans and that's not even the point. The point is that they used gun control to render a portion of the population completely defenseless and then proceeded to exterminate them. Could they have still successfully done that anyway? Certainly. But disarmed citizens are far easier to control than armed ones. Edited April 1, 2013 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) http://upfront.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm They lay out the parallels between the two. You're putting words in my mouth. I never stated the Jews could have stopped the Germans and that's not even the point. The point is that they used gun control to render a portion of the population completely defenseless and then proceeded to exterminate them. Could they have still successfully done that anyway? Certainly. But disarmed citizens are far easier to control than armed ones. I don't understand how any rational person could disagree with this. Edited April 2, 2013 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 I don't understand how any rational person could disagree with this. Except I made a slight error with my phrasing in the last sentence (corrected now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Except I made a slight error with my phrasing in the last sentence (corrected now). Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I don't understand how any rational person could disagree with this. They aren't rational. They have been brainwashed by the government to fear guns all their lives. They are not afraid of poisons, or straight razors, or motorcycles. For example, because of Hollywood, there is now an illogical fear of sharks and chainsaws. There is nothing to fear from a gun, especially if you are carrying one, yourself. There is no need to lock them up, just as long as everyone is aware of gun safety. You will never learn gun safety if you have a phobic fear of guns. I grew up around guns. I had access to guns all my life. I wouldn't carelessly load a gun and shoot it any more than I would slit someone's throat with a razor blade, which would require less effort than loading and firing a gun. Razor blades don't have to be locked up. This gun paronia doesn't make any sense, except for a government trying to control it's citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Nobody said "everyone" secures their firearms. But that data proves to me that most are secured. So a million firearms stolen and loose on the streets is enough of them being secure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 So a million firearms stolen and loose on the streets is enough of them being secure? The FBI says there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the US. We will round down to 200 million. The stolen firearms represent 0.5% of all firearms. That means that 99.5% are still in legal possession. I'd say that means most are secure. In a perfect world, none would be in the hands of criminals but that's not going to happen. Even countries with no legal private ownership still have gun crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 The FBI says there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the US. We will round down to 200 million. The stolen firearms represent 0.5% of all firearms. That means that 99.5% are still in legal possession. I'd say that means most are secure. In a perfect world, none would be in the hands of criminals but that's not going to happen. Even countries with no legal private ownership still have gun crime. I wonder how many stolen firearms are returned to the owner? NONE. So once stolen, always stolen. Over time, not so many stolen guns considering criminals are not known for returning them. Gun buybacks? More motivations for criminals to cash in on their stolen property and dump them without much risk of capture, since they do not do background checks on those transfers. Maybe there should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The FBI says there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the US. We will round down to 200 million. The stolen firearms represent 0.5% of all firearms. That means that 99.5% are still in legal possession. I'd say that means most are secure. In a perfect world, none would be in the hands of criminals but that's not going to happen. Even countries with no legal private ownership still have gun crime. In a perfect world everything would be peaches and cream. The simple fact that more aren't stolen doesn't mean that they are secure from theft. You know that you can not make that inference, it only means that they haven't been stolen. It would be interesting to know how many houses are never broken into that have unsecured weapons but we will never know that, nor will we likely ever know how many houses that were broken into that had weapons secure. I do belive that people are being much more careful about their weapons and using safes as overall numbers have dropped from the 250,000-300,000 range to the 170,000. That means people are limiting access but I'm sure that's for a combination of replacement cost and safety. People rarely do things for truly altruistic reasons. But if stolen firearms account for .5% of all firearms the fact that they account for 10% of all firearms used in gun violence is disturbing. And over the years how many millions of weapons have hit the streets because they were not secured? In our lifetime that could be 10 or so million firearms, which means a lot of firearms are available to criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The FBI says there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the US. We will round down to 200 million. The stolen firearms represent 0.5% of all firearms. That means that 99.5% are still in legal possession. I'd say that means most are secure. In a perfect world, none would be in the hands of criminals but that's not going to happen. Even countries with no legal private ownership still have gun crime. Stolen guns are not all used in the commission of crimes, some are simply sold for cash or swapped for goods and then lay around someplace else and harm no one. The majority of guns used in violent crime are obtained thru illegal means similar to obtaining illegal drugs, good luck with any law or storage solution solving either problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted April 6, 2013 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) Interesting tidbit related to Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns Maybe they should rename it HAIG (Hypocrites Against Illegal Guns). Edited April 6, 2013 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.