Thread: Here is why banning guns wont work

The Nazi's merely enforced a law with an Amendment huh? Who said the quote? In what year was the quote made? Who was in power in Germany at that time?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The Nazi's merely enforced a law with an Amendment huh? Who said the quote? In what year was the quote made? Who was in power in Germany at that time?

John I don't normally find fault with your posts but in this case I have done a lot of research as 2nd Amendment issues and arguments have been probably my biggest issue going all the way back to when I was in middle school BUT Hitler never said that quote. In over 30 years of fighting FOR the 2nd Amendment I have never found a legitimate and verified source for Hitler saying this quote.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The Nazi's merely enforced a law with an Amendment huh? Who said the quote? In what year was the quote made? Who was in power in Germany at that time?

Let me help you ( Wikipedia link ) :

Quote : / In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.
Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law."[3]
[edit]The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

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.

I don't think you understand the numbers at work here.

German Population 1939: ~80,600,000
German military 1939: ~750,000 (only about 1/3 under arms at any given moment).

Now, lets say only 1% of the nation decides they want to resist. That's 800K people - ALL of them armed - giving a numerical superiority of 4:1.

The reason the military was able to walk over the other notions is because of the shock factor - and the fact that the nations which surrendered did so in order to save the civilian population. They were not fighting to the last man. Had the nations in question actually resisted, the outcome would be VERY different.

Was the Wehrmacht good? Yep. Man for man, probably the best trained military force in human history. However, they were still human and were still killed in large numbers.
Was it good enough to beat back a force 3-5 times its size fighting from an entrenched position they knew well? Uh - NO. Not even close. I'm not sure any military is THAT good.

Basic military doctrine dictates when assaulting a defended position, you have to have a minimum 3:1 numerical superiority to even hope to win - and it will be an expensive win. A 3:1 numerical deficit makes the proposition pure suicide.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Yea, that must be why the Nazi's pushed for gun confiscation.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Source: 1935 Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator

Please don't use that quote. It is completely false. Bogus Anti-Gun Quotes

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Please don't use that quote. It is completely false. Bogus Anti-Gun Quotes

Nice find.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

I don't think you understand the numbers at work here.

German Population 1939: ~80,600,000
German military 1939: ~750,000 (only about 1/3 under arms at any given moment).

Now, lets say only 1% of the nation decides they want to resist. That's 800K people - ALL of them armed - giving a numerical superiority of 4:1.

The reason the military was able to walk over the other notions is because of the shock factor - and the fact that the nations which surrendered did so in order to save the civilian population. They were not fighting to the last man. Had the nations in question actually resisted, the outcome would be VERY different.

Was the Wehrmacht good? Yep. Man for man, probably the best trained military force in human history. However, they were still human and were still killed in large numbers.
Was it good enough to beat back a force 3-5 times its size fighting from an entrenched position they knew well? Uh - NO. Not even close. I'm not sure any military is THAT good.

Basic military doctrine dictates when assaulting a defended position, you have to have a minimum 3:1 numerical superiority to even hope to win - and it will be an expensive win. A 3:1 numerical deficit makes the proposition pure suicide.

Unless, of course, one side has artillery, an air force, and armor, and the other doesn't. In which case the side with the big guns outnumbers the other no matter what.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Unless, of course, one side has artillery, an air force, and armor, and the other doesn't. In which case the side with the big guns outnumbers the other no matter what.

Once again, as pointed out to every person who believes this simplistic idea, reality has demonstrated a completely different outcome.

Even sticking with WWII historical fact - Hitler had the better trained military, the better equipment, the better air force, better artillery and biggest guns when compared to what the Soviets used.

Now, help me out here because my recollection must be a bit fuzzy on this, but didn't the Soviets win that particular confrontation?

We can roll the clock forward or backward - really doesn't matter - and real life examples proving how wrong you are can be shown from every era.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Once again, as pointed out to every person who believes this simplistic idea, reality has demonstrated a completely different outcome.

Even sticking with WWII historical fact - Hitler had the better trained military, the better equipment, the better air force, better artillery and biggest guns when compared to what the Soviets used.

Now, help me out here because my recollection must be a bit fuzzy on this, but didn't the Soviets win that particular confrontation?

We can roll the clock forward or backward - really doesn't matter - and real life examples proving how wrong you are can be shown from every era.

Help me out here, because I'm struggling with your post...Is it your contention that the Soviets in WW2 had neither artillery nor warplanes nor tanks?

In fact, the Soviets were equipping their army with modern equipment when the Germans invaded. Once they got enough T-34s and what not on the line, they counterattacked and won. Without this equipment, and the factories which produced it, they would have LOST. Armed partisans or not.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Help me out here, because I'm struggling with your post...Is it your contention that the Soviets in WW2 had neither artillery nor warplanes nor tanks?

No - its not my contention at all. However, they were not up to par with the Germans - not by a long shot.

Frankly, neither were we. It could be argued that the European theater of WWII really came down to a war of logistics rather than skills or tactics. Ultimately, we simply built stuff faster than the Germans could break it.

If you want a more modern example of technological disparity consider the Soviets against Afghanistan. I seem to remember the Afghani's sent the Soviets home with their tail between their legs.

Then there's Vietnam, what is happening in the Middle East right now, and a host of other examples throughout history.

The big artillery really doesn't do much when you're not fighting a military force along well defined lines. Once the battle becomes one of short-ranged attrition battles, the attacker is virtually always at a disadvantage and short of genocide, tends not to win.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

No - its not my contention at all. However, they were not up to par with the Germans - not by a long shot.

Frankly, neither were we. It could be argued that the European theater of WWII really came down to a war of logistics rather than skills or tactics. Ultimately, we simply built stuff faster than the Germans could break it.

If you want a more modern example of technological disparity consider the Soviets against Afghanistan. I seem to remember the Afghani's sent the Soviets home with their tail between their legs.

Then there's Vietnam, what is happening in the Middle East right now, and a host of other examples throughout history.

The big artillery really doesn't do much when you're not fighting a military force along well defined lines. Once the battle becomes one of short-ranged attrition battles, the attacker is virtually always at a disadvantage and short of genocide, tends not to win.

Short of genocide? Well, why fight at all, then? I'm not the one assuming that my country's military could somehow wish to enslave and wage war on their own countrymen. If you're going to assume the possibility then you may as well assume that they will do what it takes to win the fight.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Short of genocide? Well, why fight at all, then? I'm not the one assuming that my country's military could somehow wish to enslave and wage war on their own countrymen. If you're going to assume the possibility then you may as well assume that they will do what it takes to win the fight.

The Germans did enslave their own countrymen, didn't they?

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Short of genocide?

Yes, adrien - when you're attacking someone's home it rapidly becomes a war of attrition. The only way to actually win that is to eliminate everyone on the other side.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Well, why fight at all, then?

Good question - some people fight because they've had just about enough of government overstepping its bounds - they decide they'd rather die fighting for freedom than live as a slave. Being French, I can understand why you may not understand this concept.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

I'm not the one assuming that my country's military could somehow wish to enslave and wage war on their own countrymen.

With all due respect - your nation's military has the dubious distinction of having lost a war with itself. I'm not sure it remembers how to actually win a war.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

If you're going to assume the possibility then you may as well assume that they will do what it takes to win the fight.

I do - and i recognize that with an armed populace, it will take far more to win the fight than any government would be willing, or able, to do.