Summations Only

quote:

---

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, 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.

---

Is it your contention that in these cases, 13 million, 20 million, and 100,000 guns, respectively, were seized by those governments?In other words, do you claim that these victims were previously armed? If not, you are just pairing arbitrary dates with arbitrary numbers--you've established no connection.The numbers may be "basically true"--it was a bloody century, full of bombs and guns--but your post hoc propter hoc argument is basically crap.Also, to most Americans, gun control means background checks and limits on weapons with mass assault capabilities; you cite histories that involved absolute bans on civilian ownership. I don't believe any of those populations were armed to any significant degree.Do you have any arguments that do not rely on logical fallacies and equivocation?

Well, apart from the false bits. If you learn one thing this week, it should be that you need reputable sources. No more websites about aliens and lizard people, OK? Just 'cos you read something on the internet and you wish it was true that doesn't mean that it is.

It's funnier than that,in a very sad way, if you know the history of China in the first half of the 20th Century.Suffice to say that the Chinese government establishing gun control in 1935 would be a bit of a joke - at least when it's held to affect the availability of weapons in 1948 - and the Chinese government of 1935 did not have much to do with the Chinese government of 1948.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Sure he does. He also has arguments that rely on false premises.

Jesus said it would be this way. Please have a Christ filled day.

Seriously, your argument is that this stuff must be correct because you've seen it on the internet a lot?

I enter Bizarro World reluctantly and with trepidation, but I'm having trouble understanding why you think an armed citizenry would be any match for the military. Don't you need to eliminate not just gun control but weapons control in general so that citizen groups can prepare for the coming attacks by the military by arming themselves with fully automatic weapons, mortars, bazookas and tanks? I'm having trouble seeing how you imagine this playing out. The entitlement checks stop coming, and there's "unrest in every U.S. city," and then what? Don't they call out the National Guard to restore order? And you want the citizenry to be armed so they can do what? Surely you don't want them to battle the National Guard, who are only trying to restore order. I don't get it.--Percy

I don’t know how to convey to you just how ‘American’ your stance sounds to foreign ears.The entire premise of your position is that there are hordes or armed governments, criminals, and U.S. enemies which law abiding citizens must obviously and inarguably take measures to protect themselves against.But the rest of the developed world just doesn’t think in this way. And you guys just sound bizarrely and bewilderingly paranoid to us when you start talking like that.The fact that governments and enemies are armed seems like a very remote consideration, and not one that is likely to be much impacted by citizens such as myself walking round with pistols. Frankly I don’t think most British or French or Japanese or Australian etc. etc. etc. citizens even really contemplate personal weapon ownership in that context. This is where you guys come across as most alien in your thinking.The notion of protecting oneself against criminality makes more sense to foreign ears. It’s clearly not such an alien concept. But where you split people into the black and white categories of criminals and law abiding citizens with a never-the-twain-shall-meet approach I think other places see it more as a case of armed citizens being simply an unnecessary danger to themselves and other citizens. Whether the danger is the result of criminal intent, accidental use, inebriation, delusion or plot loss of the sort often associated with the sorts of massacres under discussion — Is a very secondary concern. That is why the prevalence, proliferation and easy access to guns that you guys seem so rabidly intent on preserving no matter how many toddlers accidentally shoot their siblings or deranged young men go on killing sprees seems so unfathomably bonkers to so many outside the US.Anyway — I am not expecting to change anyone’s mind here. We are never going to agree on this issue. I am just trying to convey the mystifying alien-ness of your stance to many observers from other places where guns are not tolerated as some sort of perverse symbol of liberty.

No; his argument is that it must be correct because "it's basically true".

Andrews McMeel Syndication - Home you dirty rat ...

I'd just like to note that it also seems "unfathomably bonkers" to many inside the US.--Percy

Correlation is not causation.
If you want to provide more evidence, I would love to see it. But the copypasta is meaningless and mostly just blatantly stupid. That you think any of this is a valid argument goes to show your low ability to do any critical thinking.

Actually, a good counterpoint to paranoid fantasies of Red Dawn style success would be the example of Greek resistance during WW2. Greek households weren't without a gun or two when the Germans invaded, but those guns did nothing to prevent the occupation of the Country by the Germans - and did nothing of any real effect to kick them out - allied armies' operations in Europe did that.This isn't to denigrate the contribution of the Greek resistance - they were a constant thorn in the side of the Wehrmacht. But Greek people died in large numbers as a result of resistance operations (Brutal Occupation 101 (the perfunctory execution of multiple civilians for each soldier killed) being widely practiced).Fundamentally, armed citizens don't prevent invasions, and don't kick armed forces out. Well trained armies do. Red Dawn is a daft fantasy, which too many paranoid wingnuts buy into.

That would be the Daniel Boone Syndrome: the belief that a handful of patriots in coonskin caps defeated the best-trained army in the world; therefore everybody should emulate Daniel Boone and avoid government.

You are forgetting that gun nuts are all steely-eyed, crack shots with nerves of steel and the reflexes of a cat.More than a match for a compaany of battle tested professional soldiers with armour and air support.