Paul Harvey on Gun control: legit or 'net scam?

[willbrink]

Paul Harvey on gun control. Great quote, but (1) has anyone confirmed the facts and figures are actually legit and (2) can we confirm he actually said it?


CONSIDER THIS...
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
- From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
- From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
- From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
- From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
- From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
- From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
- From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because
of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last
century.

Since we should learn from the mistakes of history,
the next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
find out which group of citizens they wish to have
exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
government more than $500 million dollars.
- The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%,
Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%.
In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with
firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady
decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians
are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no
improvement in "safety" has been observed after such
monumental effort and expense was successfully
expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it's too late, write or call your
delegation.

Paul Harvey

 

[beaucoup ammo]

He said this in November of 2000..if you believe this sight:

http://www.waylandsmalley.com/paul_harvey.htm

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Also on JFPO

JFPO also credits Paul Harvey with having said this.

I'm also checking snopes.com for their take -- if any.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I use this quote quite often.

If you add up the numbers, it is more than 2000 unarmed men, women and children killed by their own government for every single day in the 20th century.

Molon Labe.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

The thing is...this is NOT the argument we need to pursue.

What if only ONE person was killed because a government first disarmed the populace and then decided that person needed to be rounded up and killed?

What if it was because that person had the wrong color eyes? Or she spoke out against the government? Or she practiced the wrong religion? What if that person was your daughter?

The next time a politician says "more guns on the streets won't solve anything", quote the above statistics. And then point out that RKBA has nothing to do with statistics. It's about individual freedom.

 

[Limeyfellow]

The problem is though the same statistics can apply just the opposite way around. Countries that didn't do gun control and massacred the population, particularly in Africa like Sierra Leone, Sudan, and countries that did take away guns and didn't massacre the population like in the UK, Holland.

Statistics are easy to bend around like that and tell the story that an individual wants to tell.

 

[mec]

safe bet that it'll hit the 'net attributed to George Carlin

 

[TX1911fan]

I couldn't find anything on Snopes.

 

[Lucky]

The problem is though the same statistics can apply just the opposite way around. Countries that didn't do gun control and massacred the population, particularly in Africa like Sierra Leone, Sudan, and countries that did take away guns and didn't massacre the population like in the UK, Holland.

Umm, that's not the best slogan.

"Gun control, leads to slaughter less than 48% of the time!"

"New and improved gun control - trust us we won't hurt you, we have criminals to do that."

"Genocide - draft laws criminalizing classes of people and you too can get away with murder!"

 

[PaladinX13]

We have to be careful about drawing improper causal correlations. For every atrocity in the light of gun control, there are "civilized" nations with it full effect and the envy of every anti-RKBA person here. We have to know that statistics are just statistics and when dealing with whole nations as entities, that's a small sample size... much less one applicable to America with its unique history, geography, politics, diversity, etc.

We cannot immediately say where-ever there are less guns or more gun control there are more deaths or more crime... it simply isn't true. But we can ask people to be reasonable and look at the bigger picture. To see that: a) Our nations are different; b) There is a principle of more gun control means less freedom that holds universally (because that boils down to the government not trusting its citizens).

If someone cites Japan's low crime and less guns, you have to show them the whole picture... their low crime rate isn't JUST at the expense of guns, but also ethnic diversity/integration, a just justice system (theirs is draconian with a high incidence of jailing innocents), rampant government corruption & organized crime (leading to misreporting of crime stats), the individualistic spirit is oppressed and made to conform, extremely high suicide rate, and pervasive and invasive laws that allow them their perverse circuses (largely uncensored entertainment) as catharsis but not real freedom (highly conformist/censored media/press), etc. etc. This pattern can be repeated with almost any nation held up as an ideal for the anti-RKBAer.

As bad as the erosion of freedoms are in this nation, they're worse just about everywhere else. And genuine freedom trumps the illusion of safety in all but the most deluded minds. Guns are an important freedom, but not the only one, so it's important to show how all freedoms can suffer when the government stops letting their citizens take responsibility.

 

[Lucky]

The basic principles behind disarmament laws are not debatable. They disarm civilians, period.

What happens to the civilians after that is up to fate. Sometimes it's genocide, sometimes it's systemic rape or abuse, sometimes it's unfair taxation, it could be anything or combination of things. But the basic point is that they are disarmed and not able to defend against it.

Any anti stupid enough to make that argument would lose the debate instantly; "Disarmed people aren't guaranteed to be slaughtered, it's luck of the draw."

 

[PaladinX13]

I'm saying it's wrong to say, "...leads to..." or "...luck of the draw..." in either case since the first demands a causal effect (disarmament -> genocide) and the second case makes it seem like it's haphazard (disarm -> 50% chance of genocide with no consideration of other factors)... either case are poor arguments for our side.

Sierra Leon demonstrates you can have pervasive gun ownership yet still crimes like ethnic cleansing on a large scale or "not able to defend against it" if you want to put it that way (guns are not an inherent good, they're tools that enable us to execute our intent- whether that's a free and stable nation or one with tribalism and civil war)... and the cases of genocide with disarmament aren't happening in a vacuum... it's not like we can genuinely put forth the argument that there is going to be genocide in Australia, Canada, or the UK because they've passed extensive gun control... that kind of argument is not going to get you anywhere with most people. We're not that unstable or that fascist... (yet).

What you can show, though, is that these nations and systems of government on the whole are "young" and have a long way to go before proving themselves incapable of becoming like the nations that did have genocide. That is, you can show how there's a tendency towards instability or fascism and how that tendency is greater in the gun control nations. More guns aren't an inherent good in some nations (they're more concerned with killing the other side than lasting freedom), but it is in this one because we believe in other ideals (not just RKBA) which support life & liberty.

I'm just saying, rhetoric won't work on open thinking minds. You can use it to rally the troops and shout down the opposition, but I don't know if it actually furthers the cause with people analyzing the argument.

 

[nplant]

Paladin makes some good points. My biggest fear is that people will NOT be reasonable enough to see the truth AND opt for freedom.

 

[cbsbyte]

Most if not all of these internet speechs that are attributed to a well know person turn up to be false.

 

[Lucky]

Paladin I see your point now, but I think we can take it one step further yet. I'm in communication with a museum in Canada dealing with the WW2 internment and general discrimination of the era, and asked them specifically about the effect on keeping firearms or other arms. Likewise with a native history museum.

I think that if you scratch off the veneer you'll find that our western nations aren't that different or special, we're still made of people, with all the good and bad entailed.


-I remember in western movies it was a crime to sell firearms to the Indians, though I'm not sure if that was a real law, if it applied only to tribes currently in conflicts, or if it was a general rule.

-And Australia too has a pretty grim history in oppression of the natives there, too.

 

[hrgrisso]

1 Man's Opinion

While statistics can be bent any which way. The numbers behind this are factual. I would refer you to the numbers involved in the documentary "Innocents Betrayed."

Also in regards to the situation of places like Sierra Leonne. While these are arguably countries. They are by and large lawless. Remember Rwanda, the U.N. disarmed everyone but the "good guys." Then the "good guys" did nothing while the bad guys MADE tools and killed others.

Remember guns are tools, we believe in a country of laws and government.

So without guns two things happen and you can say "without fail" one WILL happen, it seems to depend upon the strength of law in a given country to determine which.

Rwanda, chaos and genocide.
England/Australia, violence and rapidly climbing crime rates.

Just my 2 bits!

 

[trainwreck100]

Quote: Countries that didn't do gun control and massacred the population, particularly in Africa like Sierra Leone, Sudan, and countries that did take away guns and didn't massacre the population like in the UK, Holland.

...yet

 

[ArfinGreebly]

On The Radio

By the way, for those whose biggest concern is not the correctness of the figures but whether Paul Harvey actually said this, I was listening to the broadcast where he recited that piece.

So, yes, he did say it.

If it turns out the numbers are all kosher, then great!

 

[Beatnik]

Excellent article on Japanese gun control:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

It was very enlightening. I thought that maybe they didn't have guns because they were complete animals in WWII and nobody wanted them to - but this article states that MacArthur directly told their national police to carry firearms, and they spurned him.

 

[nobody_special]

What you can show, though, is that these nations and systems of government on the whole are "young" and have a long way to go before proving themselves incapable of becoming like the nations that did have genocide. That is, you can show how there's a tendency towards instability or fascism and how that tendency is greater in the gun control nations.

It took only a handful of years for Germany to transform from a democracy to Hitler's fascist regime. And we all know what happened then.

As for the thought that genocide or severe oppression could never happen here... ask a native American about that, or the Japanese-Americans who were interred during WW2. It was genocide and oppression, and sponsored by the United States government.

The thing is...this is NOT the argument we need to pursue.

What if only ONE person was killed because a government first disarmed the populace and then decided that person needed to be rounded up and killed? What if it was because that person had the wrong color eyes? Or she spoke out against the government? Or she practiced the wrong religion? What if that person was your daughter?

The next time a politician says "more guns on the streets won't solve anything", quote the above statistics. And then point out that RKBA has nothing to do with statistics. It's about individual freedom.

You raise a good point here. The difference between genocide and government oppression and murder of an individual is just a matter of scale. If it can happen to one, it can probably happen to many. I think this is a line of argument we should use, because it did happen in this country.

It's not so much about individual freedom, as a particular individual freedom - the right to life, and the protection thereof.

 

[PaladinX13]

Germany's a bad example for your part. If you think about it, the reasons why will come to you. It's "generous" (more accurately, "disingenuous") to call Germany at the time a democracy or- what's really relevant- one comparable to ours.

Native Americans & Japanese-Internment also show that guns in and of themselves in no way stopped or saved those things from happening (yes, there was a ban on guns for Japanese, German, and Italian Americans but basically simultaneously with internment, not as a precursor to it - which is the thesis of some pro-gun folks, that, had they guns those disasters could have been averted).

Regardless, historical mistakes are of less relevance to the discussion with a fence sitter. They would argue that it was a historical mistake which is why we study it and strive for it not to happen again (versus, say, how the Japanese censor the Rape of Nanking from their history texts) and would "of course" not happen today. They would argue that the US has been historically backwards on civil rights compared to our European betters, so the horrors of the past are meant to stay in the past.

So you need to show present day erosions and use thought experiments for them to see where we've come from and gone to today to make headway. To take us back only 5, 10, 20 years and show the difference in rights and freedoms in a "modern" and "stable" setting. Good examples are things like citizens of the UK agreeing to be monitored 24/7 by cameras (records kept for 2 years) or the Patriot Act.

My point is that bringing up things like genocide and internment do not lead to the conclusion that "guns are good", which is where you want to guide their mind towards. Instead, it's more likely to get you painted as paranoid or unreasonable (having an expectation of genocide or oppression in the US just because there's gun control).

 

[HuntCast]

Here's something to think about on this.....
As hunters, we needed to "Zumbo" Paul Harvey when he came out in favor of the ban on Dove Hunting last fall. Unfortunately, not enough hunters, and even less shooters supported the cause at the time, and he paid no price for it.
The next time, can we hunters count on the shooter community for it's support?
We all need to stick together on these things...... Zumbo taught us what is possible when we do.

I don't care how supportive of gun rights he is, if he is helping the anti hunters. In the long run, they all want our weapons.