TexasCHLforum.com

I got this via email today from a friend, I thought I'd share it, it's gun related, but not really anything to post in the other forums...I haven't confirmed the numbers or anything, just sharing, it may be an old email to some of you folks.

[begin email]

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY


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.
------------------------------
In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated
------------------------------
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. 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 law
to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government,
a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.


The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:


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 criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.


During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!
[end email]

-Cain

CainA wrote: During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

I have seen that statement pop-up over the years with absolutely no substantiation.

I guess it couldn't be because the Japanese would have to have undisputed control of the sea lanes across the Pacific for supplies, communications and at the very least local air-superiority.

Or it might be because of the differences in population and resources.

Or, I think they decided not to invade the USA because they are not a stupid people.

Gun ownership in the hands of the law abiding prevents a significant number of crimes.

Gun ownership in the hands of citizens won't be that significant if the military decided to "take over".

The armed public at large can't battle and win (with handguns and rifles only) against the military.

Having been part of the 10% that does the fighting in the military, I know how it works.

Purplehood wrote:

CainA wrote: During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

I have seen that statement pop-up over the years with absolutely no substantiation.

I guess it couldn't be because the Japanese would have to have undisputed control of the sea lanes across the Pacific for supplies, communications and at the very least local air-superiority.

Or it might be because of the differences in population and resources.

Or, I think they decided not to invade the USA because they are not a stupid people.

From memory & might accidently still have the hard copy documentation from way back before my computer literacy days. One of you gurus may want to help here w/ documentation: ie seamus????????

I believe it was first said in a meeting of US & Japanese military personell about the time control was being returned to the Japaneese. Aboard the USS Constalation I believe. One of the Americans asked one of the Japaneese officers that was in command during the war;
Did yall really know how bad you hurt us at Pearl & if so why did you not invade the West Coast?
Answer was they did know but would not invade because they knew everyother household in America was armed & many of those w/ military weapons. They were aware of the Citizens Marksmanship Training Programs & the many matches held on regular basis. I believe the quote was, "we were not about to step in that quicksand."

I think this article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://theredhunter.com/2005/02/was_a_j ... ssible.php

I particuarly like the quote regarding amateurs discussing strategy, while the pro's discuss logistics.

Just a FWIW, the big Australian gun-control legislation and buyback was in 1996, with incremental restrictions added in 1987 and 2002. There has never been an organization like the NRA in Australia, and when the government, under new PM John Howard, used the Port Arthur mass killing of 1996 as the excuse to take away Australia's guns, there was little coordinated, cohesive resistance. They slapped a 1% hike on income taxes to fund the "Buyback," then in less than a year had stripped honest citizens of very nearly all of their guns.

Not surprisingly for such politicized legislation, it seems difficult to find any thorough, reputable studies on the effects on the gun ban in Australia. The primary, official source of data is the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), appointed by PM Howard in 1997 specifically to keep track of the results of the gun ban. Sounds pretty objective to me. While the data from varying sources are conflicting, it's clear that the AIC's claim of the gun ban's effectiveness in reducing gun violence rests predominantly on decreases in firearm suicides.

There's a seemingly even-handed Wiki article on gun politics in Australia, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia.

Purplehood wrote:

CainA wrote: During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

I have seen that statement pop-up over the years with absolutely no substantiation.

I guess it couldn't be because the Japanese would have to have undisputed control of the sea lanes across the Pacific for supplies, communications and at the very least local air-superiority.

Or it might be because of the differences in population and resources.

Or, I think they decided not to invade the USA because they are not a stupid people.

It is not historically proven as accurate that the Japanese decided not to invade based on American gun ownership. What does appear to be accurate is that Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who prior to becoming an admiral had been a student of the U.S. Naval War College and of Harvard University (1919–1921), was a dove not in favor of a war with the U.S. He is alleged to have told his superiors that "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." There is nothing that I can find online to substantiate the quote, however. In any case, as an obedient servant of the nation, he planned and successfully executed the attack on Pearl Harbor. When he learned of the attack's success, he is alleged by eye-witnesses at the time to have said, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." When questioned about the potential success of the Pearl Harbor attack and the other invasions across the pacific, Yamamoto allegedly told his superiors, "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." However, there is no such official record, and the popularity of these quotes is mostly due to the movie Tora, Tora, Tora! (source)

Whether the quotations are reliable or not, Yamamoto personally enjoyed his time in the United States and always remembered it fondly. He was known to have been personally against a war with the U.S. from the outset, and he probably did know more about American life than his peers - having lived here for several years. There is no doubt that he was a very intelligent man, but he was also a patriotic Japanese admiral who left politics to the politicians. Be that as it may, Yamamoto was apparently know at the time to be a critic of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo (axis) treaty, for which "offense" he was deemed to be politically unreliable. General Tojo was a political rival (within the military hierarchy) of his before the war, and he would have willingly had Yamamoto removed if not for Yamamoto's huge respect and popularity within the Japanese navy. For a while, the Japanese army even assigned a military police detachment to "guard" him. Yamamoto's survival to that point (until he was killed a plane crash when shot down by U.S. fighters during the war) is credited to the fact that he was deemed the person most capable of leading the navy, and to his personal relationship with the imperial family, otherwise he may well have been assassinated by Tojo.

Purplehood wrote:

CainA wrote: During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

I have seen that statement pop-up over the years with absolutely no substantiation.

The next time I'm at the Nimitz museum in Fredericksburg I'll make sure and write down the reference or the name of the Japanese officer that made the statement because that is where I read it.

The Nimitz Museum has some displays that pull no punches when it comes to describing the readiness of our military on the west coast in 1941. It kinda reminds me of our military in 1979 after what Carter did to them.

One article states that the only fully functional army unit was a calvary unit that still trained on horseback.