No it couldn't; they were hopelessly outnumbered and the Nazis had the backing of the people who mattered in Germany. The Communists would never have stood a chance holding guns or not. I've already explained this to you.

If you want to give citizens weapons to fight against the government, fine. Outlaw handguns and let everyone keep their rifles and shotguns. They are more useful when fighting a fully armed soldier anyways.

Ugh.

The 1928 law on firearms relaxed gun restrictions put in place after the Treaty of Versailles. "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." In order to comply to the demands of the winners of WWI, the Weimar Government had to reduce the number of guns going around, even with civilians. Gun Control did not put Hitler in power.

 

The Nazi law of 1938 actually had as goal "to ease the defence of the German people" (german), and it made it easier for (non-jews/blacks, etc.) to get guns. But as you said, it was probably too late by then for the armed saviours to come.

 

Hitler won the elections democratically, and he got his powers following the constitution (yes, constitutions can be imperfect!). If the terrible Gun Control laws were all that stopped the Communists from saving the day, maybe they wouldn't have attempted a coup against a legitimate leader, either. But you know very well that both Nazis and Communists already had weapons.

Hey, if someone can find away to completely eliminate guns and gun trade from the U.S then I'm all for it. That's not going to happen though...

 

When society gets too used to gun ownership, trying to take them away will only lead to a black market for guns. Black markets are never good

Exactly my point. Like drugs... making them illegal doesn't exactly help.

Hey, if someone can find away to completely eliminate guns and gun trade from the U.S then I'm all for it. That's not going to happen though...

 

When society gets too used to gun ownership, trying to take them away will only lead to a black market for guns. Black markets are never good

Exactly my point. Like drugs... making them illegal doesn't exactly help.

I find that quite hard to believe. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them impossible to obtain; but it does curb their usage, significantly so.

As with drugs, banning them completely isn't the answer. But maybe you shouldn't be able to buy extended cartridges from Walmart. (yes, that was an exaggeration)

And what exactly do you think giving guns to the citizens would do?

Armed citizens gives them the ability to defend themselves from factions within the government, or even overthrow the government (like in the case of the U.S.'s Revolutionary War).

It's very difficult to intimidate someone who is on an equal footing as you. In the Germany example, if the communist party was armed it could have defended itself from the Nazi party, especially when their rights were trampled on.

 

Lol, the US citizens would never revolt against their government, and even if they did and they did it violently, America has the biggest military in the world. What would they be able to do against that?

 

 

 

Hey, if someone can find away to completely eliminate guns and gun trade from the U.S then I'm all for it. That's not going to happen though...

 

When society gets too used to gun ownership, trying to take them away will only lead to a black market for guns. Black markets are never good

Exactly my point. Like drugs... making them illegal doesn't exactly help.

I find that quite hard to believe. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them impossible to obtain; but it does curb their usage, significantly so.

 

Look at what happened during prohibition. Led to organized crime and violence, could still get it if you knew where to look, bootleggers, etc.

And what exactly do you think giving guns to the citizens would do?

Armed citizens gives them the ability to defend themselves from factions within the government, or even overthrow the government (like in the case of the U.S.'s Revolutionary War).

It's very difficult to intimidate someone who is on an equal footing as you. In the Germany example, if the communist party was armed it could have defended itself from the Nazi party, especially when their rights were trampled on.

 

Lol, the US citizens would never revolt against their government, and even if they did and they did it violently, America has the biggest military in the world. What would they be able to do against that?

US citizens dissent against their government all the time, especially during elections. They usually don't need to revolt because they can change the government.

And as far as "would never revolt," it's already happened large scale and violently twice - once during the Revolutionary War, and the second during our Civil War.

 

If you're saying that we don't need guns because we won't try to stage a coup, you may be right, but there are also times when the government isn't always there, and anarchy takes its place. It happened in the days after Katrina, so to think that can never happen is foolish.

 

If you're saying that we don't need guns because we won't try to stage a coup, you may be right, but there are also times when the government isn't always there, and anarchy takes its place. It happened in the days after Katrina, so to think that can never happen is foolish.

 

Again, American citizens would never violently revolt, too many compliant, lazy, uneducated, lazy people. The Civil War and Revolution war different times.

Ugh.

The 1928 law on firearms relaxed gun restrictions put in place after the Treaty of Versailles. "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." In order to comply to the demands of the winners of WWI, the Weimar Government had to reduce the number of guns going around, even with civilians. Gun Control did not put Hitler in power.

 

The Nazi law of 1938 actually had as goal "to ease the defence of the German people" (german), and it made it easier for (non-jews/blacks, etc.) to get guns. But as you said, it was probably too late by then for the armed saviours to come.

 

Hitler won the elections democratically, and he got his powers following the constitution (yes, constitutions can be imperfect!). If the terrible Gun Control laws were all that stopped the Communists from saving the day, maybe they wouldn't have attempted a coup against a legitimate leader, either. But you know very well that both Nazis and Communists already had weapons.

The 1928 law allowed people to have 1 gun with 50 bullets, subject to police approval, they also had to be registered. Basically, it served to arm more people sympathetic with the Nazis. The German people had absolutely no right to bear arms, as guaranteed in the US constitution.

Carrying a firearm required a Waffenschein (license to carry a weapon). The

issuing authority had complete discretion to limit its validity to a specific occasion or

locality.37 Licenses to obtain or to carry firearms shall only be issued to persons

whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.38 Licenses

were automatically denied to gypsies, and to persons wandering around like

gypsies; persons with convictions under various listed laws, including this law (i.e.,

the 1928 Gesetz) and the 1920 Law on the Disarming of the Population; and persons

for whom police surveillance has been declared admissible, or upon whom the loss of

civil rights has been imposed, for the duration of the police surveillance or the loss of

civil rights.39

 

 

You're also taking the entire paper out of context, were very clearly in the introduction it says:

This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices

to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with

an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the

liberal Weimar republic of Germanys first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the

Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of

firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as communists.

After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun

control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied

firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night

of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germanys Jews.

Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent

to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi

authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German

resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.7

 

Look at what happened during prohibition. Led to organized crime and violence, could still get it if you knew where to look, bootleggers, etc.

Yes, but it was still harder to get, and that was my point.

 

I'm not claiming that a blanket ban on all drugs is the best thing for society, what I am saying is that banning something (whatever the other effects may be) generally makes it harder to get.

 

Look at what happened during prohibition. Led to organized crime and violence, could still get it if you knew where to look, bootleggers, etc.

Yes, but it was still harder to get, and that was my point.

 

I'm not claiming that a blanket ban on all drugs is the best thing for society, what I am saying is that banning something (whatever the other effects may be) generally makes it harder to get.

 

Do you think all those negatives (organized crime and all) are a balanced trade off to restricting people's personal choices? Also lol this thread is pretty terrible at staying on track. From guns to nazis to drugs

Unfortunately, all side-alleys led to by those who oppose gun control. Comparing gun control to issues that really bare no comparison to what we're talking about.

 

Of course you can't remove guns completely from a country. No one has ever claimed the UK is completely barren of firearms. There's even some cases where guns are actually legal here. But then you can't completely stop people from printing fake money, or distributing Ecstasy 'sugar sweets' to young women in nightclubs either. Should we give up on those pursuits too, on the basis of "we'll never win"?

 

Look at what happened during prohibition. Led to organized crime and violence, could still get it if you knew where to look, bootleggers, etc.

Yes, but it was still harder to get, and that was my point.

 

I'm not claiming that a blanket ban on all drugs is the best thing for society, what I am saying is that banning something (whatever the other effects may be) generally makes it harder to get.

 

Do you think all those negatives (organized crime and all) are a balanced trade off to restricting people's personal choices? Also lol this thread is pretty terrible at staying on track. From guns to nazis to drugs

I'm not even condoning banning alcohol :lol:

 

I'm just attempting to debunk the myth that a gun control would be ineffective.

 

But yes, I do support the ban on most drugs (excepting alcohol and maybe marijuana) because of the strain abuses of those drugs put on the healthcare system. Not so much of an argument for the states, but for a country with publicly funded healthcare it's quite a poignant one.

 

Pm me or create a new topic if you want to continue as we're getting OT.

 

Look at what happened during prohibition. Led to organized crime and violence, could still get it if you knew where to look, bootleggers, etc.

Yes, but it was still harder to get, and that was my point.

 

I'm not claiming that a blanket ban on all drugs is the best thing for society, what I am saying is that banning something (whatever the other effects may be) generally makes it harder to get.

 

Do you think all those negatives (organized crime and all) are a balanced trade off to restricting people's personal choices? Also lol this thread is pretty terrible at staying on track. From guns to nazis to drugs

I'm not even condoning banning alcohol :lol:

 

I'm just attempting to debunk the myth that a gun control would be ineffective.

 

But yes, I do support the ban on most drugs (excepting alcohol and maybe marijuana) because of the strain abuses of those drugs put on the healthcare system. Not so much of an argument for the states, but for a country with publicly funded healthcare it's quite a poignant one.

 

Pm me or create a new topic if you want to continue as we're getting OT.

Solution to drugs:

 

1. Get government to fund drug research for removal of harmful side effects of drugs and yet increase that 'high' feeling.

2. Legalize drugs and make public areas available to enjoy drug usage.

3. ???

4. Profit.

 

 

On-topic: Most of the violence that occurs because of gun violence is done by people who either get guns illegally or wouldn't mind having to get them illegally. I have no stats to back this up, it is just how it seems to me. So maybe less people would own guns if they were banned, but for the most part the criminals who acutally use them would still obtain them.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they would use them against those who have no guns. There seems to be this perennial attitude that because someone is in a position to commit a crime against someone who is defenceless, and because they already are a criminal just for holding a gun illicitly, that they will commit the crime. Almost like, because they're a criminal, they will automatically commit crime regardless of context, as if Satan himself had possessed them.

 

You don't even need to look at the UK or Canada here - you can stay in the US. If the above were actually true, then those who choose not to possess guns would be being attacked by those who do already. Yet, although the homicide rate is higher in the US, you'd hardly say it's "out of control", not to the extent where you could reasonably say people must have guns to protect themselves. Therefore, the whole 'we need guns to protect ourselves from people who would gain guns through the black market' doesn't really bare out, and this viewpoint is reinforced by countries who ban gun ownership. I have never been attacked by, or even seen a real gun before, yet knowing the area I grew up in, I have no doubt I've been within ten metres of one.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they would use them against those who have no guns. There seems to be this perennial attitude that because someone is in a position to commit a crime against someone who is defenceless, and because they already are a criminal just for holding a gun illicitly, that they will commit the crime. Almost like, because they're a criminal, they will automatically commit crime regardless of context, as if Satan himself had possessed them.

 

You don't even need to look at the UK or Canada here - you can stay in the US. If the above were actually true, then those who choose not to possess guns would be being attacked by those who do already. Yet, although the homicide rate is higher in the US, you'd hardly say it's "out of control", not to the extent where you could reasonably say people must have guns to protect themselves. Therefore, the whole 'we need guns to protect ourselves from people who would gain guns through the black market' doesn't really bare out, and this viewpoint is reinforced by countries who ban gun ownership. I have never been attacked by, or even seen a real gun before, yet knowing the area I grew up in, I have no doubt I've been within ten metres of one.

Of course. But people want to ban guns, when its not really going to help anything.

There'll always be some who own weapons illlegally, but surely any measure that removes potentially fatal weapons from the street is a good thing, even if only to set the tone that using such weapons against others without good reason is wholly wrong?

if only to set the tone that using such weapons against others without good reason is wholly wrong?

The tone has already been set, its not really something that has to be said, " Shooting people is wrong."

Hey, if someone can find away to completely eliminate guns and gun trade from the U.S then I'm all for it. That's not going to happen though...

 

When society gets too used to gun ownership, trying to take them away will only lead to a black market for guns. Black markets are never good

Exactly my point. Like drugs... making them illegal doesn't exactly help.

I find that quite hard to believe. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them impossible to obtain; but it does curb their usage, significantly so.

 

Go to any American high school and tell me how much pot you see floating around. If I remember correctly, there has actually been significantly less marijuana usage when it was legal. If there is a demand, there will be a supply (legal or not) and banning an item is hardly an effective measure to combating demand.

 

Many unapparent problems have arisen from bans too - underhanded drug dealers, smugglers, organized crime, etc. have all fluctuated as a result of forcing people to go through barbed wire to get what they want.

You can't deny that when guns legally purchased in the US help feed drug violence in Mexico, maybe allowing someone that was rejected from the army and whose mental health was questioned by a college to buy a semi-automatic with extended cartridges is a little ridiculous.

 

Less legal guns also mean less illegal guns; smuggling will be there, but trafficking is harder than buying legally. And it makes sense that not everyone that has ever used a gun aggressively would have done it if they had to go into the black market to get it.

Hey, if someone can find away to completely eliminate guns and gun trade from the U.S then I'm all for it. That's not going to happen though...

 

When society gets too used to gun ownership, trying to take them away will only lead to a black market for guns. Black markets are never good

Exactly my point. Like drugs... making them illegal doesn't exactly help.

I find that quite hard to believe. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them impossible to obtain; but it does curb their usage, significantly so.

 

Go to any American high school and tell me how much pot you see floating around. If I remember correctly, there has actually been significantly less marijuana usage when it was legal. If there is a demand, there will be a supply (legal or not) and banning an item is hardly an effective measure to combating demand.

 

Many unapparent problems have arisen from bans too - underhanded drug dealers, smugglers, organized crime, etc. have all fluctuated as a result of forcing people to go through barbed wire to get what they want.

 

Actually, throughout my high school career, I remember people constantly having to find new dealers, or stock up when they did find someone precisely because there were very few reliable sources.

I'm more likely to blame the attitudes most English-speaking countries have towards hallucinogens and psychoactive drugs for their usage, rather than the fact they're illegal. Yes, if you legalise it, it removes the 'bad' appeal, but if you see the Netherlands it's not just that they're treated with more maturity, it's that they genuinely have a more cautious attitude towards things that can influence the mind. So far as evidence exists that we have an immature attitude towards psychoactives, in the crowds of people stumbling out of nightclubs on a Saturday night (of which I'm a part of sometimes), I won't accept that making drugs legal is the only answer to drug use.

 

The reasons people take drugs and the reasons people possess guns are different.

Go to any American high school and tell me how much pot you see floating around. If I remember correctly, there has actually been significantly less marijuana usage when it was legal. If there is a demand, there will be a supply (legal or not) and banning an item is hardly an effective measure to combating demand.

 

Many unapparent problems have arisen from bans too - underhanded drug dealers, smugglers, organized crime, etc. have all fluctuated as a result of forcing people to go through barbed wire to get what they want.

 

Actually, throughout my high school career, I remember people constantly having to find new dealers, or stock up when they did find someone precisely because there were very few reliable sources.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean America - I meant the United States. Common mistake of ethnocentricity. :shades:

 

And it makes sense that not everyone that has ever used a gun aggressively would have done it if they had to go into the black market to get it.

 

Absolutely, but it also makes sense that some still would. Another difference being that law-abiding citizens wouldn't have the capability of defending themselves effectively, making the criminals' jobs easier in that sense, even though they might have had to go through a tougher process to obtain the guns.

 

It's really a matter of some problems being fixed and some being added. Whether you're pro-ban or anti-ban is just a question of what effect seems more believable and what seems more worth it to you.

Absolutely, but it also makes sense that some still would. Another difference being that law-abiding citizens wouldn't have the capability of defending themselves effectively, making the criminals' jobs easier in that sense, even though they might have had to go through a tougher process to obtain the guns.

So why is it that in England, Wales and Scotland, where 'self defence' is not accepted as a proper reason for the police to issue you with a shotgun and gun ownership is largely contained to rural areas where hunting may need to take place, homocide by guns is almost unheard of; yet in Northern Ireland, where 'self defence' is accepted because of its history of sectarian violence during The Troubles, the rate of gun-related murders is about thirteen times as high?

 

Surely, those of us without the ability to defend ourselves should be suffering more than those who are.