The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from “acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons,” and ordered them to turn in all guns and ammunition to local police. As historian William Sheridan Allen noted, the Nazis also began house to house gun confiscations targeting “subversives” shortly after they came to power.
In addition, historians like Israel Guttman have outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”
Similarly, as J.E. Simkin and Aaron Zelman document in their book “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.
A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable by death.
Hitler made several stupid mistakes. Allowing the French general populace to possess firearms would be one of them. And when they rounded up the Jews to be murdered, his henchmen certainly did not allow them to be armed.
- - - Updated - - -
It has a lot to do with gun control. If the info is correct and you or no one else can offer evidence it is not, then it is a good example of how banding ownership of handguns is not a deterrent to violent crime rates and the unarmed citizen can be more subject to crime against them.
You mean the thread where you are unable to understand the difference between a homicide and murder, and have been continually ripped to shit by people who DO understand this for four pages?
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...al-Murder-rate
Bullshit.
All things being equal, defenders are, by definition, more prone to defending than attackers.
Pulling the trigger is a defensive act, not an offensive one. To believe that they're less likely to do so, just because, is an untenable, unconfirmed, and unfounded statement.
During a victimization, the defender is much more likely to feel as if their life is in imminent danger, compared to the attacker. Someone that feels their life is in danger is much more likely to pull the trigger than someone who doesn't. That's the reality of the situation.
That rarely happens, by the way. Criminals don't go around en masse committing homicide to protect their lesser crimes. So using this rare example as support for your position is laughable.A defender is far less likely to chase down an attacker and finish him off rather than letting him get away than vice versa.
False. I believe all DGU numbers are unreliable. NCVS included.And yet somehow you think that any ambiguity favors your belief.
The information isn't complete, and it certainly isn't reliable. Here is what Kleck and Gertz really found:Your points all just indicate that the information isn't complete, not that any such additional information would favor your stated position instead of the opposite.
"In an unrepresentative, unrandomized sample of 5,000 people, 1.33 % believe that their use of a firearm, whether legal or illegal, scared away an undesirable individual. When extrapolated to the entire adult population, this equals 2.5 million."
Incomplete. Unreliable.
Eat yo vegetables
I can understand that. This is a danger with a government trying to control the populace. But as I have said before, mandating all guns in the US to be registered is doomed to failure. Most would ignore such a order. Americans take their rights and liberties pretty serous and would fear such a move by the government as a means to take away what they have.
Registration in itself however is not a bad idea if it is done in a reasonable and enforceable way, such as requiring all new guns sold to be registered. Taking steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good thing. And I am referring to those with a history of mental health issues and criminal records dealing with violent crimes.
1,214,462 million violent crimes in 2012.
12,765 murder victims in 2012.
Being as generous as possible, using all murder victims (lol), and dealing only with violent crime (lol)....that's 1% of criminals executing witnesses to hide their lesser crimes.
In reality, its way way way less than 1%. Extremely rare. Fact.
Eat yo vegetables
'El Oh El'. Raw data is bad when attempting to determine causation. I'm determining if an event is rare. Not why it's rare.
Do you understand the difference?
I've just provided you with incontrovertible proof that it is rare. If you'd like to ignore that proof, that's your prerogative. Doesn't help with the 'science denier' shirt you seem to wear so proudly.
Eat yo vegetables