Thread: Here is why banning guns wont work

The Economist argues that Americas gun culture might be changing with or without laws. That the influence of the NRA is exaggerated in the media, that the increase in weapon sales is mostly due to repeat customers, while the number of gun owning households in general declines ( and has for years) and that one factor for that is demographics : latinos , blacks, women in general and other groups don´t share gun enthusiasm on the same level as white males, but that these are the groups that the gun lobby would have to reach yet doesn´t :

Guns in America: The NRA

It doesn't really matter what our gun culture is. If everyone wanted to own guns, great. If everyone didn't want to own them, great. Just so long as everyone has the right to choose.

And no gun culture among blacks? African-Americans have a pretty high rate of gun ownership.

Originally Posted by Voland

What you are doing is to present a couple of facts and make a slightly adventurous claim based on that :

1. Hitler prosecuted the Jews.

2. Hitler forced Jews to hand over all kinds of possessions, INCLUDING weapons, and THAT was the reason why he was able to exterminate them.

This is contradicted by basic logic as well as historic and sociocultural backround, as I pointed out.
The remaining few, isolated and desparate german Jews had under no circumstances a snowballs chance in hell to fight SS and Gestapo, with or without a couple of more guns.
The Nazis occupied the largest part of continental Europe for years and ruthlessly fought resistance movements armed to the teeth themselves, and you are seriously claiming that a couple of weapons in the hands of people not even used to use them would have been an obstacle to push ahead for them ?
Therefore this debate is rather pointless.
And the majority of Germans had their guns taken away by the Americans, British and French, that at least is a fact.

I linked sites that backed up what I said.

You have not refuted with anything factual just your statements that what I said was not true. You keep restating that after the war the US enforced a gun ban. You haven't even linked something to support that assertion. Then again I don't care if you do as it has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

But hey don't let that stop you. keep sounding like the fool and talking about apples when I am talking oranges.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

I linked sites that backed up what I said.

You have not refuted with anything factual just your statements that what I said was not true. You keep restating that after the war the US enforced a gun ban. You haven't even linked something to support that assertion. Then again I don't care if you do as it has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

But hey don't let that stop you. keep sounding like the fool and talking about apples when I am talking oranges.

Your first claim ( that Hitler enforced a gun ban for the german people) has been refuted by your own source. Already the Weimar republic enforced enforced registration, which is not the same as banning guns. The reason was the aim to bring the countless extremist political movements under control.
When the Nazis enforced it further ( like excluding "unreliable" people from gun ownership, f.e. Jews) , they were already sitting firm in the saddle, which means for their ascent and their policies, it was rather pointless. The Nazis controlled EVERYTHING in these days, INCLUDING weapons.
Germanys present gun law, that does not ban guns but restricts access, is even stricter however than the one from 1938.
Your second claim, that Jews having to give away guns ( just like many other things) was somehow a precondition for their extermination ( which I took issue with), implying people could have otherwise used these weapons against the Nazis YOU have not backed up by anything. I have pointed out, how this claim goes against logic, and it is nowhere claimed by serious research ( except some US pro gun websites probably. The Jews of 1938 didn´t have the numbers, the motivation, the experience or the strength to fight back with or without guns, pure and simply. If another kind of gun culture would have resulted in a different outcome, is wildy speculative, under the circumstances highly unlikely and hardly the base for a pro-gun argument for today. It is YOU comparing apples to oranges by bringing Nazi Germany into this.
Thirdly, a link about the Allies enforcing a gun ban in their occupation zones as well as the situation in Nazi Germany is for example here :


Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Straight Dope: Did Hitler ban gun ownership?

GunCite: The Myth of Nazi Gun Control


Quote : /
Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm.


Quote wikipedia : /

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956.

Originally Posted by Voland

Your first claim ( that Hitler enforced a gun ban for the german people) has been refuted by your own source. Already the Weimar republic enforced enforced registration, which is not the same as banning guns. The reason was the aim to bring the countless extremist political movements under control.
When the Nazis enforced it further ( like excluding "unreliable" people from gun ownership, f.e. Jews) , they were already sitting firm in the saddle, which means for their ascent and their policies, it was rather pointless. The Nazis cotrolled EVERYTHING in these days, INCLUDING weapons. And what they had in mind was certainly to limit access to weapons for their enemies, but they were more concerned about the members of the armed communist militias of the early 1930s that they had often clashed with attempting a coup than about the relatively few and isolated Jews.
Germanys present gun law, that does not ban guns but restricts access, is even stricter however than the one from 1938.
Your second claim, that Jews having to give away guns ( just like many other things) was somehow a precondition for their extermination ( which I took issue with), implying people could have otherwise used these weapons against the Nazis YOU have not backed up by anything. I have pointed out, how this claim goes against logic, and it is nowhere claimed by serious research ( except some US pro gun websites probably. The Jews of 1938 didn´t have the numbers, the motivation, the experience or the strength to fight back with or without guns, pure and simply. If another kind of gun culture would have resulted in a different outcome, is wildy speculative, under the circumstances highly unlikely and hardly the base for a pro-gun argument for today. It is YOU comparing apples to oranges by bringing Nazi Germany into this.
Thirdly, a link about the Allies enforcing a gun ban in their occupation zones as well as the situation in Nazi Germany is for example here :


Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Straight Dope: Did Hitler ban gun ownership?

GunCite: The Myth of Nazi Gun Control


Quote : /
Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm.


Quote wikipedia : /

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956.

When you go back to my first post yes I made that comment. Then you said something about after the war so I went looking. I even posted that when I am wrong I will admit it and like to learn proper history.

I then presented links which proved the following.

1: Hitler put through registration - Note we can go back to my other posts and see my change of mind based on new information.
2: Hitler took the guns from the Jews, laws that I linked proving that he did this and made it illegal for Jews to own guns.
3: Newspaper articles talking about how jews were persecuted with no ability to protect themselves.

You have not refuted any of the above. I have provided support for all three statements.

What this has to do with anything done AFTER the war I do not know but by all means continue to argue like a typical liberal and ignore the facts that don't suit your agenda.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

When you go back to my first post yes I made that comment. Then you said something about after the war so I went looking. I even posted that when I am wrong I will admit it and like to learn proper history.

I then presented links which proved the following.

1: Hitler put through registration - Note we can go back to my other posts and see my change of mind based on new information.
2: Hitler took the guns from the Jews, laws that I linked proving that he did this and made it illegal for Jews to own guns.
3: Newspaper articles talking about how jews were persecuted with no ability to protect themselves.

You have not refuted any of the above. I have provided support for all three statements.

What this has to do with anything done AFTER the war I do not know but by all means continue to argue like a typical liberal and ignore the facts that don't suit your agenda.

Nothing that you posted can conceal the fact that the base of your argument is a pure speculation. Noone knows, neither you nor me nor the authors of your "sources", what would have happened if the Jews of Nazi Germany had had access to more weapons (and the ability to use them, which is not the same). Probably the Nazis would have had a tougher time. Would it have stopped them ? Hardly.
I have pointed sufficiently out why knowledge of german history, the number and situation of the Jews in these days, and the political system as well as the structure of the Nazi movement suggests that not much would have changed. But that is speculation as well, of course. We could as well leave it at that.
It is true that dictatorships usually try to restrict the amount of weapons circulating. Weapons hardly make or break dictatorships (and their policies ) alone however. Just as weapons neither create nor destroy safety per se, it depends on the societal circumstances.
Plenty of other factors (such as popular support) have to be considered, and certainly in the case of the Nazis that were masters in manipulating public opinion. To the extent that they didn´t consider a weapons ban for the average citizen necessary. That was only pushed through after the war. Among others by the US army.
I think it has been shown sufficiently that the Nazis cannot serve as the base of a pro-gun argument in the modern debate in the US, since THAT indeed is comparing apples and oranges.

Gun rights and crime. In Maine your more likely to be shot by a rifle then a hand gun. Not that it matters which one does the trick. Of course we can always rely on the police to save us ... which they insist on doing.

So Maine has the best peace index 10 years running. Yet Maine has the least amount of police per citizen. No police at your beck and call? What do you do? How could you ever handle the aggression of violent criminals. Well ask one of my nearby neighbors who is an gun dealer ... and shot his way out of a home invasion.

Arms and involved citizens equals peace ... imagine that.

peace 1.jpg

peace 2.jpg

Originally Posted by Voland

Nothing that you posted can conceal the fact that the base of your argument is a pure speculation. Noone knows, neither you nor me nor the authors of your "sources", what would have happened if the Jews of Nazi Germany had had access to more weapons (and the ability to use them, which is not the same). Probably the Nazis would have had a tougher time. Would it have stopped them ? Hardly.

Speculation not fact. Your opinion does not change the facts of what DID happen. You might as well write a sci-fi novel about it for all it is worth. IF that is the best you can produce then you have not broken or refuted my argument.

I have pointed sufficiently out why knowledge of german history, the number and situation of the Jews in these days, and the political system as well as the structure of the Nazi movement suggests that not much would have changed. But that is speculation as well, of course. We could as well leave it at that.

Closest I have ever seen someone on the left here admit they were wrong. Did it hurt much to admit you didn't refute my statements and you were only speculating?

It is true that dictatorships usually try to restrict the amount of weapons circulating. Weapons hardly make or break dictatorships (and their policies ) alone however. Just as weapons neither create nor destroy safety per se, it depends on the societal circumstances.
Plenty of other factors (such as popular support) have to be considered, and certainly in the case of the Nazis that were masters in manipulating public opinion. To the extent that they didn´t consider a weapons ban for the average citizen necessary. That was only pushed through after the war. Among others by the US army.
I think it has been shown sufficiently that the Nazis cannot serve as the base of a pro-gun argument in the modern debate in the US, since THAT indeed is comparing apples and oranges.

Check out a book called "The Wave" it explains why the German people could actually support what happened and at the same time have no clue what happened.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Speculation not fact. Your opinion does not change the facts of what DID happen. You might as well write a sci-fi novel about it for all it is worth. IF that is the best you can produce then you have not broken or refuted my argument.



Closest I have ever seen someone on the left here admit they were wrong. Did it hurt much to admit you didn't refute my statements and you were only speculating?



Check out a book called "The Wave" it explains why the German people could actually support what happened and at the same time have no clue what happened.

You have built an argument on an alternative version of history that did NOT materialize ( for reasons that everybody can read up) and that noone can prove or refute. One may just consider it plausible or non plausible. Face it, Nazi Germany holds no lessons for your gun debate, at least not following your line of argumentation. Changing the argument towards the book "The Wave" (that I know) will not help it.

Yeah, right. The Wehrmacht went through a dozen European armies like a hot knife through butter. I'm sure a few armed civilians would have been a big problem for them.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Yeah, right. The Wehrmacht went through a dozen European armies like a hot knife through butter. I'm sure a few armed civilians would have been a big problem for them.:rolleyes:

Tyyrants win by having the power, the way the Nazis did what they did was by having popular support anyone arguing otherwise is hiding their head in the sand. That said, If one in six exterminated by the Nazis met them with a gun the Nazis could have tolerated a million or more casualties?

Why would they have taken that many casualties as the Nazis didn't exactly have a problem with just bringing in loads of hired goons to wipe you out if they even suspected you had a gun. Simply handing people guns doesn't automatically make them brave enough to use them in the face of what would most likely be overwhelming odds from a government who had no real problems with the concept of using any and all force to wipe out all opposition. Yes, some people may have been brave enough to take on the Nazi's but not enough to make a difference.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Why would they have taken that many casualties as the Nazis didn't exactly have a problem with just bringing in loads of hired goons to wipe you out if they even suspected you had a gun. Simply handing people guns doesn't automatically make them brave enough to use them in the face of what would most likely be overwhelming odds from a government who had no real problems with the concept of using any and all force to wipe out all opposition. Yes, some people may have been brave enough to take on the Nazi's but not enough to make a difference.

The Nazis weren't an abstract alieness they were the result of popular politics, striking against them was striking against the state and society at large. Its not a simple matter of bravery, for many it would have been striking against everything they believed and trusted. No one wants to believe the government is going to kill them, that the society they were part of has turned it's back on them, to use a firearm in defense agaisnt the state is an acceptance of how society and the state has turned against you. Who would want to do that and who could do that with firearms mandated out of reach?