Discussion on gun laws

So the OP wants to monopolize the possession of guns used to inflict violence to only the government/military? How did that work out for the Jews, who had no other viable means to defend themselves against the Nazis? The first thing on a fascist’s to-do list is to regulate, register, and then confiscate its citizens’ firearms, prior to abusing/killing them.


I’ll ignore this convenient reinterpretation of how the Holocaust started. Instead, could you please expand on how the armed civilian population would defend itself from the U.S. military? (I’ll assume they follow tradition and don’t refuse orders, or else we wouldn’t have anything to discuss.)


I certainly dont agree with all of Steve’s views on gun ownership in this clip… but he nails it at the end!


In my reply, I was not attempting to present a full historical cronology of the rise of Nazi Germany and the subsequent events that unfolded. The point I was trying to make is that for Germany to have succeeded in carrying out a successful mass genocide of over six million Jews, they had to disarm the targeted populace first, leaving it unable to defend itself. If you don’t like this example, consider Pol Pot in Cambodia, Lenin/Stalin in Russia, Mao Zedong in China, or numerous others, who together committed acts of mass democide/genocide resulting in the murders of more than 100 million human beings. In each instance, these acts were committed against a disarmed populace with no ability to resist.

In the U.S., citizens own more than 300 million firearms. If these people, en masse, decided to resist or topple the government (or even defend itself against government tyranny), the U.S. military would be unable to stop it. The U.S. military is greatly outnumbered and out-gunned. The historical record provides examples of how this can be accomplished given an armed populace; however, one need look no further than the American Revolution when armed local militias deposed the resident government and its military.


Damn this guy comes in and stomps me…
Wish I could’ve said it so well in my entire dragged out reply-fest.

When this a reality, guns won’t matter. They’ll send in a swarm of these in and wipe out whoever they want.

I feel everyone needs to stop arguing over what this person can own or that person can own. Instead we need a society focused on improving the overall mental health of everyone and stop worrying about profit. Get back to being human and talk to the people around you!


And this has already been discussed on a lot of places (in a better way than I can):

1 Like

Do you believe everything you that you read or see in the media? Please consider the credibility of your sources and trust only irrufatable facts, vice opinions.

That is, unless you were one of the murdered Jews I guess. This article was written by an amateurish fool with no capacity for critical thinking or rational thought. In trying to dismantle the notion that gun control facilitated the annihilation of six million Jews, he inadvertently ends up proving that it did. @draw, did you actually bother to read what you’re offering up as proof of your position and did you consider the article’s many contradictions?

I try not to. Please feel free to reference to sources you think are more credible.
edit: @tjf I didn’t read the complete article thoroughly from beginning to end. But I certainly did read the paragraph you referenced. And I think he meant to say (in a colorful way) that this gun prohibition for Jews only is obviously bad, but that does not mean that all gun prohibitions are bad/used in a bad way. The last paragraph won’t help however to convince people.


That was over 200 years and countless trillions of dollars ago. All of the branches of the U.S. military forces are among the best of the world. They are disciplined and well coordinated. They would win hands down even if they weren’t better equipped and supplied.

Anybody not completely deluded would get the gist of how this “resistance” would go down after reading some of the real-life experiences from these Quora answers and the comments on them: What would it be like to play paintball against Delta Force?

Hint: it would be a bloody, though somewhat dull and inglorious, massacre of the militias.

The same assessment could have been made regarding the British Redcoats almost 250 years ago. Please do a search on “Fifth Generation Warfare.” One of the flaws of U.S. military doctrine is that they are always preparing to fight the last war.

1 Like

Exactly. They are always preparing to fight a war. As in, actually, actively, day to day preparing to fight a war. It’s their job and they are good at it.

That 0.5% (I’m generous) of the armed civilian U.S. population that would actually do anything, they are not preparing to fight the last war, the one before it, or just any war. In fact, they are simply not preparing. When they aren’t goading in the bar about what they would be doing in a battle, they may go to the shooting range and make a lot of noise. Is that preparation? In an actual battle, they would be dead before they finished arguing about the chain of command.

This conversation is at best entertaining, at worst unbelievable. I don’t feel like I can get much out of it and I already said everything I thought was worth adding, so I think I’ll stop here.

Joe’s valid point aside…

US citizens may own more than 300 million firearms, but this does not imply 300 million armed people. Elvis Presley owned like… 40 different weapons. Gun people are usually gun collectors. They love ‘their guns’ like kids love their teddy bears. They amass them. They often even give them names. No wonder. Some of them sleep with a gun under their bed/pillow and so on.

Another thing is, 300 million people would never fight a government back like an army of one. If anything, so many armed people would – in case of some big-scale conflict – lead to a plethora of little wars all over the country. One reason being, some of those armed people are connected to the army one way or another, and many of those people would fight beside the government, not against it.

And if guns did not keep Jews from getting disarmed and subsequently gassed, it’s probably more of an argument against the idea of guns providing safety against the tyranny of your government, as it’s always your government’s way anyway.

1 Like

but if the times need it those people may give their guns to the friends and close people so it is 300million armed people

Yeah, let’s pretend the gun owners just give away their Arlenes and Charlottes and Fionas and the entire population is armed, kids and elderly included. In that case, who exactly are they gonna fight?

An extra statistic in response to the double mass shooting in the USA:

1 Like

Gun ownership does not increase violent crime. That is easily proven by the last 30 years of US history, where violent crime has steadily declined (including gun murders), while gun ownership has steadily increased. The US has about 50% of the annual per capita murders and violent crime it did 25 years ago. In fact, one could argue, given the UK and Australia gun bans (I know they aren’t strictly bans, but for the sake of argument, they essentially are), that the removal of guns has a negative impact on total violent crime.

Also, the suicide stats are bogus. Of course owning a gun results in being more likely to commit suicide, because a lot of people buy guns specifically for that purpose. The US suicide rate is not outside the norm of the Western world, men in the US just choose to use a gun for that purpose instead of hanging, which is the preferred method across most the rest of the world. If owning a gun makes someone 3x more likely to commit suicide, we would see astronomical suicide rates in the US compared to similar countries.

I don’t know the statistics of violent crime evolution of the USA over the years. But if that is the violence related to gangs/mafia etc in cities like New York (zero tolerance) I can understand that this has decreased. It seems to me, if you compare the current gun death statistics with other countries, the USA can even have less gun deaths with gun laws even a bit less loose.
You’re correct that the US suicide rate is not outside the norm of the Western world. But who knows, it can be even better with less guns.
This is anecdotal: A butcher (meatman) of my village shot himself a couple of years ago in a sudden surge of depression with a weapon he already had. If he didn’t had that weapon I doubt he would have killed himself with one of his knives: that is a lot more difficult to do in a short suicidal mood.

Most men choose extremely lethal forms of attempting suicide. The % of successful suicides is much higher for men than women because of that (worldwide, not just the US). Knives are not one of those tools, which is a frequent tool for women, as well as pills. Without access to a gun, he would have likely hanged himself or succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning from car fumes. That’s what statistics would say.

There are some interesting stats involving how guns affect criminal behavior. For example, across Europe, it is much more common for a home invader/burglar to enter a residence while the occupants are home. I’m too lazy to look it up right now, but I believe the stat for the UK, is something like 56% of forced home entry attempts are while the occupants are home. That drops all the way into the teens, right around 18%, I believe, for the US. Criminals are much less likely to seek confrontation with those they are criminalizing in the US.

In any case, the media hyper-sensationalizes the mass shooting problem. I’ve seen people online say they are scared to travel to the US because they are afraid of getting shot. That’s preposterous, according to statistics. If you aren’t involved in criminal activity (gangs, drugs, etc), your chances of getting shot in the US is barely a blip on the radar, and nearly non-existent if you just don’t go to the shady parts of towns. If you assume 100 people are killed in any given year in the US by these random mass shootings (which is actually a pretty liberal estimate, it is usually much lower than that), that’s 0.000023% of the US population. Just for some comparisons as to how small that is, you are about 2.7x more likely to get struck by lightning in the US, or about 300x more likely to die in a car accident in the US. Most people don’t spend their time being afraid of dying in car accident, much less getting struck by lightning.

It’s almost like suicide and mass shootings are driven by similar psychology. Maybe both go down in areas where the quality of life is better.