I think knowing our history is extremely important, but I wonder about the conclusions you've drawn.
Of course I've heard the same claim you're making here, many times from other gun rights advocates in the U.S.. (Not a common narrative anywhere in Europe as far as I know).
So is it your opinion that Hitler managed to take power, murder millions of Jews, socialists, communists, intellectuals, liberals, gypsies/Romani and other people he deemed undesirable and invade and occupy several European countries, because of confiscation of legally owned weapons? Are you going as far as implying that the Holocaust wouldn't have taken place if the Jewish people in Germany had been better armed?
In my opinion, you would have been better off using Mao's China or Stalin's Russia/USSR if you wanted to demonstrate that totalitarian leaders sometimes try to disarm the general public.
I'm not sure if you're simply regurgitating a talking point you've heard or if you've actually taken the time to study European history from the early 1900s to the end of WWII?
Gun laws in Germany were arguably stricter during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) than during the Third Reich (1933-1945).
In the first years following the end of WWI and the from a German perspective, humiliating Versailles treaty; Germany faced a growing post-war economic crisis, marked by worsening debt balances, food shortages, hyperinflation and political turmoil. From the mid to late 1920s, Germany experienced some temporary relief with a period of relative stability and it saw a growing economy, decreasing unemployment and less civil unrest than during the years immediately following the war. Then the Great Depression hit worldwide and Germany was severely affected by it and things took a turn for the worse again.
Hitler was appointed Chancellor in early 1933 in the midst of the Great Depression. The Nazis restored economic stability and ended mass unemployment through using heavy military spending and extensive public work on infrastructure, including the construction of Autobahnen, was undertaken. The return to economic stability served to boost the regime's popularity. Antisemitism, was from the beginning a central feature of the regime. Hitler was actually reasonably popular amongst Germans, at least the non-liberal, blond and blue-eyed ones. Germans were primed by the defeat in WWI and the economically very challenging years that followed, to be wooed by the "charms" of a strong-sounding demagogue who promised them economic success and a status as the superior race.
Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
Disarmament of the German Jews - Wikipedia
The Jewish people were targeted early on, before Hitler, and they were not allowed to own guns. However, they were singled out. This wasn't an effort to disarm all Germans, "only" and specifically an identified and targeted minority.
As far as confiscation of guns in occupied countries, didn't that come after the occupation? Of course an invading country will want their continued presence to be met by as little resistance as possible, so that makes sense from their perspective. However confiscations of guns didn't lead to countries being invaded and occupied, the confiscation came after.
If there's anything we can learn from history here, it's that it's extremely dangerous for freedom and democracy when a majority of a population actively support or at least silently accept, when a minority population is being vilified, demonized, and persecuted. I'll let you draw your own modern-day conclusions, if any, regarding that.
No matter what your reason for bringing up Hitler's Nazi regime, you must realize that the ship has sailed on "you the people" figthing off a tyrannical goverment with whatever arms you have at your disposal. You are overpowered many times over. Have your guns if you feel you need them for defense against ordinary criminals, if you like to hunt or enjoy shooting for competitive purposes, but don't kid yourself into believing that they could keep you safe if your government in the future decides to come after you.
If you want to safeguard against a tyrannical government, you are in my opinion much better served by "nipping it in the bud" by keeping your government accountable and actively calling out any anti-democratic/totalitarian/authoritarian tendencies you may witness. But hey, that's just my $0.02.
Ah yes, and almost one hundred years later, how many more school bombings in the U.S.? How many mass shootings? If you add up the number of children murdered, do bombs or firearms "win"?
To a grieving mother or father or sibling it doesn't make the tiniest ******* difference, whether their murdered child or brother or sister was one of 44 or one of 27.
The only acceptable position in my opinion, is coming up with a plan on how to better protect children and keep them alive and safe. This attempt at normalizing one horrific crime by referring to another horrific crime, makes me slightly sick.
Why do you think that the fact that one man used a bomb translates to guns "not being a factor" when so many murders are carried out with firearms? To me, that's just poor logic.
And I'm sure you have just as little evidence to support your quote, as the poster who originally wrote it and who you quoted, has.
You are free to make the unsupported claim that guns are NOT a factor, but until you show me the evidence the backs up your claim, I'll treat your "expertise" and authority on the subject the same as I regard my "Doctor Google" patients.
If you happen to know a forensic behavioral analyst, ask him or her about what usually motivates a school mass murderer and what psychological profile is most common? What kind of feeling/result are they hoping to achieve? Then you can ask them whether in their experience and professional opinion, a perp with that typical profile is more likely to "do the deed" with firearms or a bomb?
I agree, it's easier to have these conversations in real life. And a beer or two never hurts Don't worry about any potential language abuse, I'm one of the worst offenders myself. My vocabulary is fine, but my butchering of your grammar is quite brutal. Anyway, thank you for your reply :) I appreciate that you took the time to write a serious response. That earns a "like" from me eventhough I might not agree with everything you say.
If we ever get the same high homicide rates as you have, I promise I'll shut up :)
Seriously though, I think doing an international comparison and analysing what factors are the same or similar in other countries and which factors are different, might provide some valuable insight.
Ehh.. There's at least one guy in this thread who's proclaimed that he wouldn't surrender his weapons even if they were declared illegal. I may be mistaken but I got the impression that a cop killing or two in order to "protect" his guns wouldn't be outside the realm of the possible. I hope I misunderstood that part. Anyway, that wasn't you.
Again, I don't think the majority of people want or that the people in government are seriously entertaining the idea of asking for all firearms to be turned in. I just think a whole lot of people are genuinely sick to their stomachs from the neverending occurence of bew mass shootings and general gun-related violence and wish to implement policies that at least lower the number of shootings. I peronally don't think taking all guns from law-abiding citizens is necessary to achieve that.
I think that some of the effects and consequences of various acts/actions aren't as much a foregone conclusion as you may think. I'll try to clarify what I mean.
You're in all likelihood quite correct, I don't see criminals lining up to voluntarily surrender their guns. But there are ways for law enforcement to minimize the number of guns they have without depending on them to volunteer. It's takes an active effeort on their part, but it can be done. It won't be achieved overnight, it's likely a longterm project.
Why would it though? If there was an automatic correlation between the number of guns law abiding citizens have and the number of crimes committed against them, then countries where few civilians are armed would have much higher crimes rates (not to mention being taken over by dictators all the time since we're all defenseless...). Instead it seems in many cases that the opposite is true. That indicates that there are more factors in play.
Just like most people in general don't own guns in my country, a vast majority of criminals don't either. Gun violence has gotten worse over the last ten years or so, but it's still quite rare that innocent people get shot. The bad guys who are armed, tend to shoot their competition.
Money/cash transports are carried out by guards who are unarmed. Although there was one spectacular robbery back in 2005 that involved both firearms and explosives, the two guards were physically unharmed. (Psychologically is likely a different story). That robbery was unusually brutal. It's not uncommon that the robbers show up armed with a crowbar or similar. Since they know that the guards aren't armed, they do not need guns.
I'm a night person and I actually fairly regularly go out for runs in the central parts of town at two, three or four in the morning. I'm definitely aware of my surroundings when I do, but I'm never afraid. I'm female and while I admit being 6'1'', spending a lot of time at the gym and having a decent number of years of jiu-jitsu and krav maga under my belt helps, I certainly wouldn't go out if I had an expectation of meeting a gun-toting fool every 200 yards.
There actually are societies with a whole lot fewer guns in circulation than yours, and I think that the biggest mistaken assumption you make, is thinking that fewer guns in general (among "normal" folks), will still mean that criminals feel it's necessary and be willing to risk the punishment that comes from being arrested while in possesion of a firearm, to still be armed to the teeth at all times. In my experience the majority criminals, unless they've drugged their brains into something resembling scrambled eggs with the same cognitive and analytical capabilities as you'd expect from that favorite breakfast dish of mine, do a risk/reward analysis.
One thing that struck me when I lived in the U.S. was that many people are afraid. Being stopped on routine checks by police demonstrated clearly how the prevalence of guns in your society affects them. They were extremely focused and sometimes even jittery/jumpy and that made me feel that I should probably not even blink as they approached my car. Here, you'd have to pull over thousands of cars until you statistically find one with a gun inside.
I'd often walked to the grocery store (cause walking's good for'ya and the weather in SoCal is beautiful :)) and concerned police officers would stop and ask if my car had broken down. They'd look at me as if I was semi-nuts when I replied, nope, just taking a walk.
Often, when I get involved in these "gun threads", someone always brings up home invasions. I admit I haven't researched the statistics thoroughly, but I have to wonder. Is a home invasion really a more likely threat than being in a car accident? Sometimes I just feel that the fear is a bit disproportional compared to the likelihood of the threat.
The cynical side of me suspects that the fear is being meticulously cultivated and stoked by those who stand to profit from gun sales.
Aren't you fed up with living in fear?
Thank you and right back at ya
It really breaks my heart to read about the things some of you have experienced and lived through. There just has got to be a way to make people agree on ways to decrease the number of senseless deaths that occur way too regularly.