Show me how gun bans work to make things better.

Hitler's gun bans made it better for the Nazi's in Germany.

Stalin's gun ban made things better in the Soviet Union, for Stalin.

Mao's gun ban made the Cultural Revolution easier, for Mao.

Pol Pot's gun ban made for a better time in the killing fields, for the Khmer Rouge.


Gun bans never work well for the average citizen, but if you're a totalitarian dictator, or want to be, you need to disarm the opposition.

Other people seeking to ban guns have their own motivations, none of them good. A rapist like Bill Clinton certainly doesn't want women to be armed. Just remember, a gun ban removes a woman's best equalizer. Gun bans are clearly anti-woman.

 

Damn! Not what I was looking for but very hard to deny. Thanks!

 

Hang on a minute. So you are proposing the UK in 1939 didn't have an armament industry? Or are you proposing if the gun ban hadn't been in place, the British government would have taken hunting rifles and shotguns off civilians put them in the hands of the British military to fight the might of the German military? Or are you proposing if the gun ban hadn't been in place, the British government would have sent civilians across the Channel with their civilian hunting rifles and shotguns to take on the might of the Wehrmacht?

Now which is it?

 

Who is trying to ban guns?

 

Wait - get back on topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Any gun bans as they pertain to the knee jerking here in the US.

 

OK,, do you realise one reason for gun bans in Australia, Canada and the UK in the 1920s can be attributed to the rise of Communism in those countries and said governments wanted to keep guns out of the hands of Communists?

 

Actually you do have a semi-valid point. But the governments were mostly against the red tide and the US never went far red so I think europe would have been much the same way. That was fear of the people by the government. Still I do appreciate your logical post.

 

Unless you're trained, stupid lucky, or very realistic and overly prepared, they generally are not, they can be though.

 

Interesting. In the US, gun legislation has traditionally been targeted towards black Americans as opposed to communists.

Anyways, are you saying that gun bans were a good thing because they kept guns out of the hands of communists? Aren't you living in a communist country right now?

- - - Updated - - -

So they aren't except for when they are...gotcha'.

 

They are not for the average citizen. I'm pro-gun though, so I'm not really sure why you're trying to pick an argument with me.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I was just summarizing what you said in a smarmy kind of way.

 

And in doing so you missed the point. I know how to use a gun, I've used one semi-successfully to defend myself before, I wouldn't count on being able to do it again though. The attacker always has the advantage, and if the attacker has a gun it is hard even for a police officer to defend themselves with a gun. People aught to be allowed to have them though. It's just that when most people say they've got one for self-defense they are being incredibly unrealistic and even delusional.

 

Possibly the reason for banning guns in the Australia, Canada and the UK due to the Communist threat may have been a knee jerk reaction. The Communist Party of Australia had been around since the early 1920s but never had the political clout the other major parties had, and were banned at the beginning of WWII, but once agained some support when the Soviet Union entered WWII. The biggest fear Australians had at that time was the "Yellow Peril", the Japanese. I doubt anyone really knew how many active Communists were around in Australia in the 1920s.

Me living in a "Communist" country is irrelevant.

 

The evidence is obvious when one considers the real purpose behind the move. The exercise of unobstructed power, the growth of government and by extention, the left, and the perceived failure of the right on the issue. Any move is simply one of many and any concession simply provides the foundation for the next demand.

It is not about safety, the Constitution, or anything else but political domination and the destruction of individual liberty including the means toward such liberty.

 

You keep waiting. I said what I meant; if you can't really fathom it... I won't spell it out for you.

 

Our rate of violent crime is half what it was a couple of decades ago despite doubling the guns in society. The UK has about zero legal guns while their violent crime rate has about doubled over the same period.

Who is doing it right?

 

To be fair the UK never really had a High rate of gun ownership. They have almost always been under a tight leash over there.

 

You wouldn't care to put your theory to the test by breaking in on a scared woman with a shotgun in her hands would you, Pro???

 

No because why the hell would I do that anyway? In a panicked situation the adrenaline makes it harder to aim a gun rather than easier because you tense up. This is a FACT. Like I've already said I'm on your side in this debate.

 

So how does any of this show me how gun bans make things better?

 

There are a lot of us that know how to use them and even some of us that are trained to use them. Personally I like a revolver because they never jam, most of the time (depending on what you bought it for) they pack more of a punch (mine are .357 Mag and up). I spent time in the military (just like 35 million others out here), was a reserve police officer, and have been handling weapons for 60 years. If it's on the street you have a point when the weapon is concealed, but in an open carry state it depends on the person.

 

See all you are doing is showing what gun bans are a bad thing I want all these bleeding heart know it all folks out there to show me something.

 

You're right I should have clarified that a little more. But the combination of the tunnel vision plus your muscles tensing up is not a good one for defending yourself with a firearm if you're caught by surprise, plus you'd have to be training constantly the only time I've had to use a gun I was somewhat used to using one, but I've noticed when I've not trained for a few months I lose a lot of my ability. I'm not sure that everyone in the military keeps up training after they're gone, but there is no doubt it's a useful skill to have and I think that people should learn to defend themselves with a firearm, I think it's a pretty crucial survival skill really.

I'm on your side on this one.

 

Hi Arch, it doesn't because gun bans don't work and no one can show you any gun ban in this nation that did work. The bans started because the Chicago Underworld gangs killing each other and some civilians. Now the Libs want to continue them because of a few crazies that shot up some schools and Theaters. In other words, because of criminal activity they want to punish law abiding citizens ............ again!!!

 

Hi Pro, I still drew and fire in 3/10 of a second with a western style holster . I know it's not a world shaking time but it still takes people by suprise when I have the gun in the holster and they have a gun cocked with their finger on the trigger and when I start to move they are suppose to pull the trigger and they loose.