So explain to me how those were examples of gun control leading to genocide. Because I have yet to see a single conclusive example where the two were related.

Like I said, worldview difference. I do see that disarming the population opened them to oppression, you can't. Hell, the American Revolution ignited when the Redcoats came for our weapons. It's so common and happens so repeatedly that the connection should be beyond refute, but you prove that isn't the case. Such is life.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Like I said, worldview difference. I do see that disarming the population opened them to oppression, you can't. Hell, the American Revolution ignited when the Redcoats came for our weapons. It's so common and happens so repeatedly that the connection should be beyond refute, but you prove that isn't the case. Such is life.

A: No they didn't.

B: Still haven't seen any examples.

---

A: No they didn't.

B: Still haven't seen any examples.

Provided and either discounted or ignored. No sense discussing it further, the biases are too great.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Provided and either discounted or ignored. No sense discussing it further, the biases are too great.

No, what you've provided is an image of dictators with some text around and no background information or sources and a list of years, again with no background information and sources.

 

Here's what a proper example looks like:

 

In 1996, in Port Arthur, Australia Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured a further 24, including himself, in what would become known as the Port Arthur massacre. Australia's Federal Government then led the state government to enact strict gun control laws on owning and using firearms. This included a buy-back program for weapons that would be banned under the new laws. So far, in the 18 years since that event, no genocide has occurred in Australia and no indiscriminate spree killing with firearms has taken place either.

---

The idea that an uprising could have prevented Nazi rule of Germany is a fantasy at best.  The fact is that jews weren't just denied guns, they were denied all basic human rights.  Even if they were allowed to 'keep their guns' (which they didn't have because of the previous government and the result of world war I, not because of Hitler), the fight they could have put up against the S.S. would have been minuscule at best, and likely would have seen just as many -- if not more deaths because of resistance.

 

The same goes for the Russians fighting against the Bolsheviks.  Give them guns, and they'd just die faster.  Some people might prefer to 'go down fighting', but the fight would ultimately be fruitless.  

 

To say that gun control is popular among dictators, would be the same to say that military and police are popular among dictators, and we should do away with them altogether as well. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Wasn't my point, my point was the the so-called "Slippery Slope Fallacy" isn't always a fallacy.

Not when you move the goal posts. 

---

The idea that an uprising could have prevented Nazi rule of Germany is a fantasy at best.  The fact is that jews weren't just denied guns, they were denied all basic human rights.  Even if they were allowed to 'keep their guns' (which they didn't have because of the previous government and the result of world war I, not because of Hitler), the fight they could have put up against the S.S. would have been minuscule at best, and likely would have seen just as many -- if not more deaths because of resistance.

 

The same goes for the Russians fighting against the Bolsheviks.  Give them guns, and they'd just die faster.  Some people might prefer to 'go down fighting', but the fight would ultimately be fruitless.  

 

To say that gun control is popular among dictators, would be the same to say that military and police are popular among dictators, and we should do away with them altogether as well. 

Oh look, it's someone who actually knows something about history and some common sense.

 

And to add to the argument: The Bolsheviks took power in a military coup-de-etat which would have been impossible without them having ample firearms. The lack of gun control was actually a massive advantage to them.

---

How's that working out?

It's been alright so far, but it's not going to last. I actually don't like it. I'd rather be able to invest my money for my future the way I want to. The government can't efficiently run anything much less manage money.

---

As for the whole gun to genocide debate, I don't think flsprt is saying because people lose their guns there is genocide. However the reality is a disarmed populace is a vulnerable populace. Certainly the rise of oppressive regimes there are many complex factors, but one of those factors is the inability of a population to rise up against the oppressive regime. Name the last oppressive regime that didn't disarm the public? Certainly there has been nations to restrict or even ban firearms and they've remained free from oppressive regimes but they're more vulnerable then armed populations that's undeniable.

 

When you disarm the public you leave their security in the hands of government, I for one will never be comfortable with that scenario, that's why I own firearms and plenty of them.

---

Name the last oppressive regime that didn't disarm the public? Certainly there has been nations to restrict or even ban firearms and they've remained free from oppressive regimes but they're more vulnerable then armed populations that's undeniable.

 

Iraq? Yemen?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Iraq? Yemen?  

 

Sadam Hussein certainly disarmed the public anyone that wasn't associated with the Ba'ah party. Yemen doesn't have a functioning government to disarm anyone I'm missing your point.

 

edit: Not to mention especially in Iraq anyone that opposed Sadam was just simply killed, so I'm not sure where you get the notion people where free to arm and defend themselves, simply speaking out against Sadam was enough for a death sentence.

---

Sadam Hussein certainly disarmed the public anyone that wasn't associated with the Ba'ah party. Yemen doesn't have a functioning government to disarm anyone I'm missing your point.

Where are you getting that he disarmed the public or anyone not associated with the Ba'ah party?  I see evidence to the contrary.  If there was gun control, it was poorly enforced because private ownership of guns in Iraq was comparable to that of the United States.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/world/...iting.html

According to this article by the New York Times:


 

 

 

 
Most Iraqi households own at least one gun, so there has been no particular run on armaments. But some gun shop owners report as much as a 50 percent jump in ammunition sales.  

In fact didn't the US have to try to crack down on gun ownership in Iraq when we went over there?


I've found very little on what Sadam allowed and didn't allow, aside from speculation that he must have banned gun ownership because he was a dictator.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Where are you getting that he disarmed the public or anyone not associated with the Ba'ah party?  I see evidence to the contrary.  If there was gun control, it was poorly enforced because private ownership of guns in Iraq was comparable to that of the United States.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/world/...iting.html

According to this article by the New York Times:


 


In fact didn't the US have to try to crack down on gun ownership in Iraq when we went over there?

 

 The majority party was the Ba'ah party and yes they where very well armed during Sadam's regieme but the Kurds not so much. The UN had to come in and establish a safe zone to stop the persecutions against the Kurds it was so bad.

---

 

 

What about Saddam Hussein? I spent lots of time covering his country from 1984 through 2006. If he issued some sort of ban on private weapons ownership, he was either lousy at enforcing it, or his people simply ignored him. I was in Baghdad during the war with Iran in the mid-1980s. The two countries’ national soccer teams competed in a match on neutral turf, and Iraq won. The happy gunfire all around Baghdad and other cities that night was so intense that the government had to warn Iraqis to stay indoors because of the bullets raining down. How is it that Saddam Hussein had disarmed his people but still had to warn people about avoiding bullets from the very guns he had supposedly banned? I can’t find any evidence that the ban ever existed. Iraqi Kurds certainly never disarmed, regardless of this supposed seizure of all weapons by the dictator.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews...trol.html/

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I haven't read this entire thread, but is there really a fear our government will take our (well, your...I don't own a gun) guns away?

 

I've seen nothing to make me think it's even a remote possibility.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I haven't read this entire thread, but is there really a fear our government will take our (well, your...I don't own a gun) guns away?

 

I've seen nothing to make me think it's even a remote possibility.

I don't actively fear it at the moment, but vigilance is the price of all our freedoms. But make no mistake, there certainly are folks in this country and government who have confiscation as a long term goal. That silly slippery slope again, where "common sense gun laws" are the top of the hill.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews...trol.html/

 

1977-1987 when the Kurdish villages where destroyed by the thousands and they where forced into resettlement camps, they where systematically disarmed. That was during the rise of the Ba'ah party and Saddam's taking control of Iraq. After that the Kurds have been persecuted off and on for decades when the Shi's or Iran don't have Iraq's full focus.  

 

Like I said the majority party (Iraq since Saddam's rise to power has been a predominately one party country) is very well armed, anyone that isn't with them is either killed or exiled forget disarmed. Your also trying to compare a country that hasn't been stable in nearly 100 years, even when Saddam was in "control" they where constantly fighting on religious sects. Trying to cite Iraq as an oppressive regime that didn't confiscate guns is laughable, they where a repressive regime that exterminated non-compliance. 

---

I haven't read this entire thread, but is there really a fear our government will take our (well, your...I don't own a gun) guns away?

 

I've seen nothing to make me think it's even a remote possibility.

 

It's not possible, doesn't mean they won't one day try. 

---

I don't actively fear it at the moment, but vigilance is the price of all our freedoms. But make no mistake, there certainly are folks in this country and government who have confiscation as a long term goal. That silly slippery slope again, where "common sense gun laws" are the top of the hill.

 

It's not possible, doesn't mean they won't one day try. 

 

Are you two in favor of no restrictions on gun ownership?

 

I mean, the slope gets slippery somewhere.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Are you two in favor of no restrictions on gun ownership?

 

I mean, the slope gets slippery somewhere.

I believe that society can quelch rights for cause, I dont believe that it should preemptively do so. Gun restrictions are no different than poll taxes or "hate" speech laws in my opinion.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato