Guns and politics – a short history of guns in assassinations

An FN 1910 of the type used by Princip to kill the Archduke. Image from Wikipedia
An FN 1910 of the type used by Princip to kill the Archduke. Image from Wikipedia

Changing history

“Assassination has never changed the history of the world,” Benjamin Disraeli, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, told the House of Commons after the assassination of US President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Perhaps not up until then, but on 28 June 1914 Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip did his damnedest to prove Disraeli wrong.

On that day the 20-year-old Serb from the impoverished village of Obljaj, in Bosnia near Bosansko Grahovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, shot and killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, setting off a chain of events that would lead to the worst war in history to that time, World War I, one that had profound and long-lasting effects on the history of the world, Disraeli's comment notwithstanding.

Quite an achievement for a 20-year-old, but he stood in a long line of individuals who sought to solve political differences through the barrel of a gun. The line stretches back to Linlithgow in Scotland where, in January 1570 one James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, a supporter of Mary Queen of Scots shot and killed James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (pronounced "Murray"), the illegitimate son of King James V, who was at the time acting as Regent for his nephew, the infant King James VI of Scotland, making him the first ruler to be shot and killed.

Although assassinations have a very long history going back to the beginnings of recorded time, this Hub will be looking only at assassinations successfully achieved by guns.

"Judith beheading Holophernes" by Caravaggio. Image via Wikipedia
"Judith beheading Holophernes" by Caravaggio. Image via Wikipedia

Sex and violence - assassinations in history

“I am going to do a deed which will be remembered among our people for all generations,” said Judith to the elders of Israel, prefiguring by many centuries what seems to motivate many assassins to this day, the desire to be remembered for some great act.

Judith went to the camp of the Assyrians who were fighting a war against Israel under their general Holophernes. A beautiful woman, she set out to enchant the fearsome general with her feminine wiles until “Holophernes was beside himself with desire for her.”

Leading him on, Judith made sure that Holophernes became, as the Bible says, “dead drunk,” and was “lying sprawled on his bed,” when she took his sword and cut off his head. The head was then concealed in a bag and taken back to her hometown of Bethulia, where she showed it to the people saying, “Praise God! O Praise him! Praise God, who has not withdrawn his mercy from the house of Israel, but has crushed our enemies by my hand this very night!” (Judith 13: 14; New English Bible,1970)

One is reminded of Kipling's “the female of the species is more deadly than the male.”

Shakespeare, who knew that sex and violence sells, also took up the theme of assassination, notably in his plays Julius Caesar and Macbeth.

India and China also have assassinations recorded in their early histories, for which there is no space here.

James Hamilton preparing to shoot the Regent Earl of Moray. Image via Wikipedia
James Hamilton preparing to shoot the Regent Earl of Moray. Image via Wikipedia
The assassination of William the Silent. Image via Wikipedia
The assassination of William the Silent. Image via Wikipedia

Religion and politics - early gun assassinations

As mentioned above, the first killing of a ruler by a gun was the assassination of the Earl of Moray by James Hamilton in 1570. Hamilton was a Catholic supporter of Mary who had been forced to abdicate in favour of her one-year-old son James in 1567.

Hamilton was the nephew of Archbishop John Hamilton of St Andrews, who seems to have had prior knowledge of the plan to kill Moray.

His plan to kill Moray was certainly not a spur of the moment thing. He had followed Moray around Scotland and parts of England for some time before he was suddenly presented with the opportunity at Linlithgow, where his uncle the Archbishop had a house.

For one just starting a new way of doing politics, Hamilton was very thorough in his preparations. He chose a spot in his uncle's house, a gallery overlooking the street which the Regent would take, put chicken feathers on the floor to deaden his footsteps and hung black cloth on the wall behind him to reduce the possibility of his shadow being seen. He obtained a carbine for greatest accuracy and a good horse on which to get away.

He shot as the Regent rode past on his horse, mortally wounding him. According to a contemporary account, “The Earl of Moray, the Good Regent, was slain in Linlithgow by James Hamilton of Bothwell-haugh, who shot the said Regent with a gun out at ane window, and presently thereafter fled out at the back, and leapt on a very good horse, which the Hamiltons had ready waiting for him; and, being followed speedily, after that spur and wand had failed him, he drew forth his dagger, and struck his horse behind; whilk causit the horse to leap a very broad stank; by whilk means he escaped.”

So was the first assassination by firearm accomplished.

The next known assassin was not so lucky - Balthasar Gérard shot and killed William the Silent on 10 July 1584, was captured almost immediately, tortured in the most horrible ways before being beheaded.

Gérard was at least in part motivated by his Catholic beliefs (William was a Protestant), but certainly also by the offer from his hero, Philip II of Spain, of a reward of 25,000 crowns to anyone who would kill William.

Once again politics and religion are mixed in the motivations of the assassins.

Gustav III. Image Wikipedia
Gustav III. Image Wikipedia
Bellingham shoots Perceval in the lobby of the House of Commons. Image Wikipedia
Bellingham shoots Perceval in the lobby of the House of Commons. Image Wikipedia
After Perceval was shot. Image Wikipedia
After Perceval was shot. Image Wikipedia
Assassination of Abraham Lincoln From left to right: Major Henry Rathbone, Clara Harris, Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln, and John Wilkes Booth. Currier and Ives print via Wikipedia
Assassination of Abraham Lincoln From left to right: Major Henry Rathbone, Clara Harris, Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln, and John Wilkes Booth. Currier and Ives print via Wikipedia

Later gun assassinations

In 1792 King Gustav III of Sweden was shot and killed by army officer Jacob Johan Anckarström at a masked ball at the Royal Opera in Stockholm, an incident immortalized in Verdi's opera Un ballo in maschera (although Verdi did change the location of the incident.).

Anckarström was tried and tortured before his execution in a manner reminiscent of the trial and torture of Gérard 200 years before.

The next notable assassination by gun was the killing of British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval in May 1812, the only assassination of a British Prime Minister ever.

Perceval was shot by a citizen unhappy about the lack of government concern for his losses in Russia, John Bellingham, in the lobby of the House of Commons.

Bellingham felt aggrieved at the perceived lack of concern for his plight on the part of the British Government and made this impassioned plea at his trial:

"Recollect, Gentlemen, what was my situation. Recollect that my family was ruined and myself destroyed, merely because it was Mr Perceval's pleasure that justice should not be granted; sheltering himself behind the imagined security of his station, and trampling upon law and right in the belief that no retribution could reach him. I demand only my right, and not a favour; I demand what is the birthright and privilege of every Englishman. Gentlemen, when a minister sets himself above the laws, as Mr Perceval did, he does it as his own personal risk. If this were not so, the mere will of the minister would become the law, and what would then become of your liberties? I trust that this serious lesson will operate as a warning to all future ministers, and that they will henceforth do the thing that is right, for if the upper ranks of society are permitted to act wrong with impunity, the inferior ramifications will soon become wholly corrupted. Gentlemen, my life is in your hands, I rely confidently in your justice."

Bellingham was publicly hanged in May 1812.

The next notable gun assassination was that of President Abraham Lincoln on 14 April 1865. Lincoln was the second US President an assassin had attempted to kill – the first was President Andrew Jackson in 1835, an attempt which failed due to the guns of the would-be assassin, Richard Lawrence, misfiring.

Lincoln's assassination reverberated around the world, as no other would until the assassination of John F. Kennedy almost 100 years later.

In between there had been two other assassinations of US Presidents - those of James A. Garfield in 1881 and William McKinley in 1901.

In 1896 the Shah of Persia, Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar, was assassinated by Mirza Reza Kermani. The revolver used by Kermani was so old and rusty that it was subsequently said that had the Shah been wearing a thick overcoat he would have survived.

This assassination would lead to the first modern democratic movement in the Middle East. Perhaps one assassination that had a good outcome?

Click thumbnail to view full-size
Gaetano Bresci. Image WikipediaEugen Schauman. Image WikipediaBobby Kennedy after being shot. Image Wikipedia.The body of Ninoy Aquino. Image Wikipedia.
Gaetano Bresci. Image Wikipedia
Gaetano Bresci. Image Wikipedia
Eugen Schauman. Image Wikipedia
Eugen Schauman. Image Wikipedia
Bobby Kennedy after being shot. Image Wikipedia.
Bobby Kennedy after being shot. Image Wikipedia.
The body of Ninoy Aquino. Image Wikipedia.
The body of Ninoy Aquino. Image Wikipedia.

The 20th Century - competing ideologies

枪杆子里面出政权

Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. - Chairman Mao Zedong: The Little Red Book (1964)

The 19th Century saw many revolts and repressions in Europe and Russia. Towards the end pf the century a crowd of unarmed citizens marched in protest on the royal palace of the King of Italy, Umberto I.

A force of military carabinieri commanded by General Fiorenzo Bava-Beccaris met the protesters and on his order fired into the crowd with muskets and cannons, leaving more than 90 people dead.

Umberto later decorated Bava-Beccaris for his "brave defense of the royal house". This was the spark which inflamed the feelings of Italian-American anarchist Gaetano Bresci against the King. Bresci became determined to kill Umberto and began actively to plan the assassination.

On 29 July 1900 Bresci became the first person to kill a reigning monarch and not be executed himself. He shot the King four times while the king was on an official visit to Monza. Bresci was tried and sent to prison for life - which in his case ws not a long time. He was found dead in his cell less than a year later - suicide or murder?

In her autobiography Emma Goldman had no doubt - "I knew what torture would be his lot in prison & I recalled the fearful treatment of Luccheni, a similar victim of the ruthless social struggle."

In July 1904 Nikolay Ivanovich Bobrikov the dictatorial Governor-General of Finland, representative of Tsar Nicholas II was shot and killed by Eugen Schauman in Helsinki. Schauman was a Finnish patriot bitterly opposed to Russian rule. His action still raises opposing views in Finland, though Finnish nationalists tend to regard him as a national hero.

From 1904 onwards the list of assassinations by guns gets very long and complicated. A partial list:

  1. Prince Itō Hirobumi, Japanese Prime Minister, killed in 1909
  2. George I, King of Greece, killed in 1913

  3. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, killed in 1914, setting off the chain of events that led to the "Great War" of 1914 - 1918.
  4. Jean Jaurès, French socialist leader, killed in 1914.

  5. Gabriel Narutowicz, first President of Poland, killed in 1922.

  6. Alexander I of Yugoslavia killed while on a visit to France in 1934.

  7. US Senator Huey Long killed in 1935.

  8. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India, killed in 1948.
  9. Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in 1959.
  10. African American activist and NAACP leader, Medgar Evers, killed in 1963.

  11. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States, killed in November 1963.
  12. Malcolm X, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Sunni Moslem leader and Civil Rights activist in the US, killed in 1965.
  13. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and religious leader, killed in 1968.
  14. Robert Francis Kennedy, Senator and Presidential candidate, killed in 1968.
  15. Saudi King Faisal, killed in 1975.

  16. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, President of Bangladesh, killed in 1975.
  17. San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, both killed at the same time in 1978.

  18. Leo Joseph Ryan, Jr., US Congressman, shot by Jonestown sect members, 1978.
  19. Park Chung-hee, president of South Korea, killed in 1979.
  20. Musician John Lennon, killed in 1980.
  21. Egyptian President Anwar Al Sadat, killed in 1981.

  22. Lieutenant General Ziaur Rahman, President of Bangladesh, killed in 1981.
  23. Philippine Senator Ninoy Aquino, killed in 1983.

  24. Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, killed in 1984.
  25. Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, killed in 1986, possibly by agents of the South African apartheid regime.

  26. South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani, killed in 1993, almost triggering a civil war.

  27. Luis Donaldo Colosio Murrieta, Mexican Presidential candidate, killed in 1994.
  28. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, killed in 1995.

  29. Members of the Nepalese Royal Family, including King Birendra, killed in 2001.
  30. Dutch Election Candidate Pim Fortuyn, killed in 2002.

  31. Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić, killed in 2003.

  32. Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, killed in 2006.

  33. Salmaan Taseer, 26th Governor of Punjab, killed in 2011.

This list of 33 gun-related assassinations is probably not complete, frightening though it is. There are other assassinations, such as that of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto, where the exact of cause of death is uncertain.


Guns and society

"It is a devastating reflection on our moral health that guns are not rarer than gold, and harder to find than peace in the present gun-infested misery of the world." - A.C. Grayling, in The Reason of Things, 2001.

It is manifestly easier for some people to try to resolve differences - ideological, racial, religious, class - by aiming a gun at someone, than by rational discussion, by voting, or using whatever other means there are for doing so. And there are in the modern world, many such means, admittedly of somewhat varying degrees of efficacy.

Almost every one of the 33 or so gun assassinations in the 20th and early 21st Centuries listed in this Hub has a disaffected individual and a heated ideological difference as part of its reality. Added into this is the relative ease of obtaining a firearm. Admittedly a few of these assassinations have been committed by people with legitimate access to a firearm, like a member of the military. But these are in the minority.

And if one adds into this list the huge number of people who have been killed by more-or-less psychologically damaged individuals in shootings at schools and sporting events, family murders and the like, the number of gun-related fatalities really should give us all pause.

The 20th Century was marked by unprecedented killings, in wars, in death camps, in massacres of all kinds. Dictators and authoritarian leaders of all stripes made use of death, of killing, as a way of sorting out political differences and attempting to gain the upper hand.

As Grayling reminds us, in the same book as quoted above, "A gun is a device expressly designed for killing things. It is a tube fitted with mechanisms engineered to project hard objects as forcefully as possible, the aim being to pierce and fatally damage the bodies of living creatures."

"It must be nice, therefore," Grayling continues, "to be an arms manufacturer. Investing in arms companies is like buying gilts, so secure are their sales, so bottomless the demand they satisfy; for conflict is in endless supply, given that men will always find reasons to hate and kill each other."

The life of an arms manufacturer must be a good one, says Grayling. They can "eat well, take pleasant holidays, and sleep contentedly, knowing that the money they make from selling ever more guns keeps them well away from the harm those guns do."

If insanity is, as one definition would have it, doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results, then advocating more guns, arguing for the easier availability of guns definitely falls into the category of insanity.

Copyright Notice

The text and all images on this page, unless otherwise indicated, are by Tony McGregor who hereby asserts his copyright on the material. Should you wish to use any of the text or images feel free to do so with proper attribution and, if possible, a link back to this page. Thank you.

© Tony McGregor 2011

More by this Author


Comments 85 comments

jmarq25 profile image

jmarq25 5 years ago

That is a great article. There is a lot of good info.


justom profile image

justom 5 years ago from 41042

Excellent, well written and well thought out work Tony. While I've never owned a gun myself I'm not sure which way I fall about the control of them. The way the government here in the U.S is worries me. It really is a double edged sword. Thanks for making us think. Peace!! Tom


Mentalist acer profile image

Mentalist acer 5 years ago from A Voice in your Mind!

If I wanted,I could spend $200.00 and have a kit to transform any gun into an automatic nightmare...so sad.;)


ahorseback profile image

ahorseback 5 years ago

Tony excellent coverage of assasinations , And as we learn each day , there are extremists everywhere. Some even who aren't mentally challenged. To be honest with you I own guns , I love particularly old black powder guns. They hold a rich and colorful history. I grew up in a home where hunting was an ever prsent family tradition. And it bothers me to see extremists use them immorally. If thats the right phrase . I suspect they would use butter knives to kill if they had to , Do guns in America protect and allow freedoms vigillence? Who really knows. Perhaps one day a world free of them AND free of the need to protect others in this world ,is a dream. The good guys need them now , thats for sure. Great dialog.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Excellent article, but I'll never fall in with anti gun propaganda; and History proves that gun control kills more than guns do.


Real_Words profile image

Real_Words 5 years ago

When i was lil i was obsessed with JFK. Interesting hub !


CheyenneAutumn profile image

CheyenneAutumn 5 years ago

Interesting post Tony. Assassinations are violent acts to be sure, and while I think you are trying to show just a limited amount of the connection between the use of guns in them and call ownership into question, I have to say I own several guns. I inherited them from my father and grandfather, as well as one or two that I have purchased. I do not see them as a threat to myself or to anyone else. It is all within the intent of the person who is holding the guy that the threat lies. We cannot legislate intent nor should we attempt to legislate the right to own something just because it can be lethal when used improperly. Hunting and target shooting are both things that require the use of guns and while it can be argued that those are not necessary things in today's world I would disagree. I could get on my soap box and go on and on. Lets just say its not the guns that are at fault, nor the right to own them.


DiamondRN profile image

DiamondRN 5 years ago from Charlotte, NC USA

I pray that no one in your family ever suffers because you are not prepared to protect them, Tony.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

jmarq - thanks for stopping by. Glad you found the info useful.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Tom - thank you for your considered comment. I really appreciate it very much.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Bryan - sad indeed, my friend! Thanks for stopping by. Appreciate your comment very much.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Eddie - thanks for stopping by. Your comment gives much food for thought. The problem is that everyone who owns a gun, whatefver use they put it to, sees himself or herself as a "good" guy and the rest as the "bad" guys. That is why the regulation of gun ownership is both so necessary and so difficult.

The protection of freedoms in a democracy is through the ballot, not the bullet. Seeing the government as the "enemy" in a democracy is anti-democratic and will destroy, not protect, freedom.

As for those who would use a butter knife to kill - it is a whole lot easier to stop a person using a butter knife than an automatic rifle - in the time it takes to stop a person wielding a knife, a gun will have killed a dozen people.

Thanks again for the great comment.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Wesman - I would appreciate some evidence in support of your statement, because what I have seen so far shows the direct opposite of your contention. I have seen no evidence why I should accept the pro-gun propaganda more than the anti-gun propaganda. In fact rather the opposite.

Thanks for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Real_Words - thanks for stopping by and commenting. JFK's murder was a deed most foul and haunts me to this day!

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Cheyenne - thanks for the comment. I agree that intent cannot be legislated to some degree. Surely we can legislate against murder or theft? I know that the law cannot make me love you, but it surely can stop me killing you, or punish me if I do?

Guns just add a whole other dimension to violence by reason of their efficiency, and the development of the technology. Guns can kill at a distance, without the killer ever getting close to the victim. Other methods of killing require the killer to get up close. So I don't think guns can be classified with other weapons like knives, for example (cross-bows might be something of an exception, more like guns).

So I would argue that it is the guns that are at fault. If you buy a gun you are signalling your intent to kill, because that is what guns are for. They have no purpose other than to kill. And they do so quickly, efficiently and cheaply. Not good news in my mind!

Thanks again for coming by and leaving a thoughtful comment.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

DiamondRN - I think you make an unwarrented, and rather insulting, inference. Do you believe that only a gun can protect my family? That, frankly is bulls##t! Indeed guns add to the insecurity of society, not its security.

So in trying to stop or limit the proliferation of guns I am protecting my family.

A member of my family was murdered some years ago and if he had had a gun it would not have helped him in the least. Guns are not the answer. They are part of the problem. And they have nothing to do with my desire to protect my family. Christians say, "In God we trust" - so why do they trust guns more? Just a thought?

Love and peace

Tony


BJBenson profile image

BJBenson 5 years ago from USA

My eyes are tired. But I saw you had a new hub. I may have to come back. So much information. Well done. I think we will always have weapons. Those taser guns just killed someone here last week. The man had a heart attack. He was running from the police. You just never know. I am sure the police officer wasn't planning on that. Poor cop. He just wanted to stop him.

Take care my friend. Nice hub.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

BJB - thanks for stopping by. Thanks for reading and commenting in spite of the tired eyes! I think you are right about there always will be weapons, but I would like to think we have the ability to make rational choices about the use of them

Have a good rest now!

Love and peace

Tony


HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Very comprehensive history of gun assassinations Tonymac. I am in line with your opinions on gun control but unfortunately the opposite side in the U.S. has a stranglehold on the politics of the issue at least at the present time. The second amendment of our Constitution allows citizens to bear arms and our Supreme Court has been striking down most gun controls. A majority of our citizenry guards this so called right zealously. Politicians here face withering financial opposition in their elections so they give up. It is quite sad.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

HS - yes it is sad. The arms industry will do all it can to keep conflict and hatred alive - after all, it's their bread and butter. And the US must be quite a large market for them, so they would not like to see any form of gun control legislated.

Puts the whole democracy into question, though. Clearly the arms manufacturers have a stranglehold through their vast cash resources - it is very like the tobacco industry which for so long was able to suppress the research finding linking smoking to cancer. That battle seems to have gone mostly the way of common sense - let's keep hoping for the same in regard to guns, though it will obviously be a longer and more difficult struggle.

Thanks so much for commenting.

Love and peace

Tony


Ingenira profile image

Ingenira 5 years ago

A very comprehensive write up on gun assassinations, Tony. An interesting read. Good Work ! The story about Judith has especially captured my attention. Gotta watch out for beautiful woman, eh ? lol...


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Ingenira - yes indeed, as Kipling said, the "female is more deadly than the male!" LOL! Watch out for beautiful women indeed! But I love them all the same.

Thanks for stopping by and leaving such a great comment.

Love and peace

Tony


Doug Turner Jr. 5 years ago

Great stuff here, Tony. You're a student of history, so I'm sure you well know that Ferdinand's death was merely the catalyst for war amongst various feuding empires. The keg barrels of gun powder were already in place; the assassination was just the lit match. My high school and others teach the assassination as it were the only cause of the entire world war. Bloody foolish if you ask me. Well done. Great read. Thanks and cheers.


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 5 years ago from Wales

A very well written and informed hub. I enjoy reading all your hubs Tony because you fully research all your subjects and I learn so much. This in turn helps me grow as a writer also.

Keep writing and I will keep on reading Tony.


ExpandYourMind profile image

ExpandYourMind 5 years ago from Midwest USA

Congrats on another great one. Fascinating and well done, Tony.


dallas93444 profile image

dallas93444 5 years ago from Bakersfield, CA

Great article and comments. Given the statement "guns kill people from a distance..." Poison too kills from a distance. There are many methods to kill from a distance.

People kill people.

Flag up and awesome!


always exploring profile image

always exploring 5 years ago from Southern Illinois

Tony, You've written another great hub,full of facts that i was unaware of. I don't know the truth about owning guns. There was a time when hunters were the only ones ( outside of the military and police ) who needed guns, but now i'm not so sure. Thinking about the shooting in Arizona, if someone had a gun, they could have saved the lives lost to that mad gunman. I think all killers are going to get guns,so in order to protect ourselves perhaps we need them too. It would be wonderful if no one would ever need a gun. I know i wear rose colored glasses LOL, anyway your hub was very educational. I know you put a lot of research in it. Thank you.

Love and Peace


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

A Little Gun History Lesson

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

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

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews 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 MayanIndians, 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.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because

of gun control: 56 million.

Domestic effects of gun control in Austrailia

Twelve months following the day that gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300

percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the

criminals did not!

Do you think that it will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,

gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns - We Are 'Citizens'.

Without Them - We Are 'Subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

AND NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SURRENDER YOUR GUNS!!!

Final Thoughts.

Gun control is and always has been a precursor to further government oppression, and indeed, the murder of it's own citizens. Should you be a convicted felon, then I must say that no government on Earth, and no person has the right to prevent you from owning a firearm. Break the law, the unnatural laws of this nation, or any nation have no binding upon you. You have the right, and the obligation to defend yourself against violent people, and especially, violent governments.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Doug - thanks for the comment. Yes I realise the assassination of the Archduke was but the flint to the tinder, as it were. I have read and enjoyed very much Barbara Tuchman's excellent "The Guns of August". In fact looked it up again to write this Hub.

Thanks for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Eiddwen from the lovely valleys and hills of the beautiful Wales! Thanks so much for the kind words - and I will keep on writing, have no fear of my stopping!

Thanks indeed for the visit and comment.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

EYM - thank you so much for the kind words which I so appreciate.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Dallas - indeed I had not thought of poison. Guess I was thinking more of the "contact" sort of killing. And even with poison it's not easy to kill large numbers without a lot of planning, whereas with a gun you just take it into a crowded place and spray bullets around. And it seems it might be easier to obtain a gun either legally or illegally than it is to obtain poison!

Thanks for the great comment.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Ruby - thanks for the interesting comment. My fear is that as those we would regard as the "good" guys get more and "better" weapons those we would regard as the "bad" guys will respond in kind. We already have this crazy situation in fact. I also am not convinced about the use of guns in self-defence. A high proportion of privately-owned guns end up being used against the "legitimate" owners. I have not seen any convincing stats that show a person is safer for having a gun.

Thanks for a thoughtful comment.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Wesman - thanks for the gun history lesson. I think that what you have written here is unconvincing. To show a direct and causal link between gun control and the extermination of millions in the various countries you have listed would take much more than you have provided here. At the very least onewould have to know whether those you say were murdered as a result of gun control firstly all had guns and secondly would have been prepared to use them against their own governments, both propositions which I think would be very difficult to show.

What you have shown here is two issues with no direct linkage. Especially in the holocaust, the issue of gun control is totally irrelevant. The Jews would have been killed anyway, whether or not they had guns. So this whole argument is actually fallacious.

I just did a bit of digging into the Australian stats around gun-related deaths. I could found some interesting stats for 1998, a decade after the introduction of stricter gun control there. In 1988 there were 696 gun-related deaths, including suicides and police shootings. In 1998, exactly ten years later, the total gun-related deaths was 327. So I'm not sure where you got your stats, but the facts are different.

I have also found interesting figures on homicides in Australia which declined from 354 in 1996 to 287 in 2007.

In addition I have found research that states: "In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007."

On the issue of Japan during WWII deciding not to invade the US because US citizens were armed, the facts are also rather different, according to the US Army's Centre for Military History. Their report on "American Military History", p. 165: "Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma."

The alleged quote from Admiral Yamamoto is not sourced and Prof Donald M. Goldstein, an authority on Pearl Harbour, has said of this claimed quote, "I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where."

So I'm afraid your arguments don't hold up and they are sourced from an email that has circulated without any supporting evidence and without citing any reliable sources.

If you want to see some refutations of the email here is the link to the Annenberg Public Policy Centre at the University of Pennsylvania: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-au...

You state, without any supporting evidence, that "Gun control is and always has been a precursor to further government oppression, and indeed, the murder of it's own citizens." That, frankly is not true.

Your whole argument from that ridiculous email called "A little Gun History Lesson" is actually an attempt to mislead people.

So thanks for coming by and commenting, and I have to say with respect that I am completely unconvinced. Bring me some real stats from a reputable source and I am quite open to hearing reasoned arguments based on them. But innuendos and veiled associations don't do it for me.

Love and peace

Tony


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Of course that was a chained e mail, Tony; but even if the stats are not completely accurate; the confiscation of guns in various countries, the ones listed, did, in fact, occur as a precursor to massive amounts of murders of citizens, by governments in those nations.

As for the Ashkenazi "Jews," and the great mistake people make is assuming that there are a race of Jews, when there never, ever has been a religion that was also a race. . . .is the Ashkenazi, or European Jewish resistance to the Nazis as in the following, from Wikipedia:

Between April and May 1943, Jewish men and women of the Warsaw ghetto took up arms and revolted against the Nazis after it became clear that the Germans were deporting remaining Ghetto inhabitants to the Treblinka extermination camp. Warsaw Jews of the Jewish Combat Organization, and the Jewish Military Union attacked the Germans and their Polish collaborators with a handful of small arms and Molotov cocktails. After fierce fighting, vastly superior German forces pacified the Warsaw Ghetto and either murdered or deported all of the remaining inhabitants to the Nazi killing centers. [2] German forces suffered 110 casualties during the uprising, including 17 dead, according to German figures.[3] There were a total of seven major ghetto uprisings, as well as armed struggles during the final liquidations of seven more ghettos

So you see, had more Jews been armed, there would have been a significant difference in their rate of extermination, or murder, as I prefer to call it, during the second world war. A disarmed populace is always less able to resist a criminal, tyranical government.


De Greek profile image

De Greek 5 years ago from UK

.

I was very interested in the attitude of the guy who lost his investments in Russia, who thought it natural that someone else should pay for his mistakes :-)


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Wesman - Perhaps the confiscation of guns did happen before, but there is no causal link. The comparison to the Warsaqw Ghetto is also not relevant. The majority of Jews in the Ghetto did not approve of the Jewish Combat Organization until late in the "game". And there is no justification, logically, for the claim that "had more Jews been armed, there would have been a significant difference in their rate of extermination." Indeed the rate of extermination, given the vastly superior Nazi arms, might even have been quicker. In fact there is no way we can actually know.

I still wait for credible stats to show any increase in violence and death as a result of gun control. All the stats I have seen so far indicate just the opposite.

You also state that "A disarmed populace is always less able to resist a criminal, tyranical government." Are you suggesting that the US government is criminal and tyrannical?

Thanks again for commenting.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Brother Dimitris - indeed, is that not a priceless thing? You eff up in another country and then expect compensation from your own government? Hilarious! What's not so hilarious is to go and shoot someone whom you blame for your own effing stupidity. I couldn't quite believe what I was reading when researching that incident. And poor Spencer Perceval! To be the only British PM assassinated while in office. Not a great achievement, I think?

How's the marrow doing, BTW? Still OK, is it?

Thanks for stopping by, my esteemed brother!

Love and peace

Tony


amillar profile image

amillar 5 years ago from Scotland, UK

The trouble with getting your gun out is that the other guy might shoot first, and his aim might be more accurate.

Funny you should mention that ‘war to end all wars’; I was talking to someone about it yesterday. You know, try as I might, I can never get a clear answer to the one question that bothers me most about it: What was it all about?

You’re a scholar Tony.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

For those who think owning a gun is good for self-defence, I have just found this interesting little statement: "Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families." From http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/...

This is in line with stats that I have seen elsewhere too.

Just thouht I would toss this little morsel in for good meaure!

Love and peace

Tony


dallas93444 profile image

dallas93444 5 years ago from Bakersfield, CA

response to amillar:

World War One began with a minor assassination in a small corner of a long-forgotten empire in Europe. Yet it was to become history's first truly global conflict. It embroiled some 30 countries across five continents and was fought on a scale never before seen by mankind.

Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated while he was visiting Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, which was then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

He was assassinated in protest because many Bosnians wanted to be free from the empire to unite with neighbouring Serbia. In retaliation and urged on by Germany, Austria invaded Serbia.

Serbia called for help from Russia, which was suspicious of Austria's ambitions.

Each country in turn was drawn into the conflict.

Germany, keen to expand its empire, soon declared war on Russia and France and invaded Belgium and Luxembourg.

Most thought the war would be over by Christmas

Both Russia and France mobilised to protect their national territory.

Britain declared war on Germany for its violation of the independence and neutrality of Belgium.

None of the states that went to war realised how long it would last or how terrible the cost might be. Most thought it would be over in a few short months and that peace would return in 1915.

Once the war had begun, the initial reasons for being involved seemed to become less important. The great powers battled it out to see who would be left standing at the end.


De Greek profile image

De Greek 5 years ago from UK

.

Like Bunguo's ghost, I now go about without speculation in my eyes and I expect Macbeth to jump out at me at any moment and shout at me “let the earth hide thee!“ :-)))


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Amillar - thanks for the comment and the compliment - much appreciated!

What was the "war to end all wars" about - a lot of bruised egos, I think! No seriously it was very complicated and it's some years since I read Barbara Tuchman's brillliant history of it. Maybe I should do a review of her book. Might be interesting.

(And now I see Dallas has just saved me the troube and answered you question! -Thanks Dallas! Seems he also thinks it was about bruised egos! LOL!)

You are so right about the other fellow having better aim - see the comment I have just made above!

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Brother Dimitris - methinks thou art too modest! Or just scared, maybe?

Macbeth is the one in the unquiet grave!

Love and peace

(Oh, and love to your good lady too! Ha Ha!)

Tony


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Tony, I'm suggesting that only tyranny and criminal governments benefit from the confiscation of firearms.

In the United States of America, most murders are carried out with blunt instruments, and so the cause of death in most murders in the USA is blunt force trauma. More children die in the USA as a result of swimming pool accidents

So Tony, when you get done verifying that those stats are correct, and they are; will you then want to ban candle holders, baseball bats, and swimming pools?


MartieCoetser profile image

MartieCoetser 5 years ago from South Africa

Oh, this is so upsetting! I’ve stopped reading the Old Testimony decades ago because I can not stand those gruesome describing of barbaric wars and murders by people who shout all the way ‘Praise God! O Praise him! Praise God’. Om van naar te word! While I studied the kings (and queens) of England, I almost died of shock…. The history of the Arabs… actually of all nations on this planet has been written with blood - event upon event of horrible murders and massacres ad nauseam. And to think it was so common that ladies were able to social next to guillotines, watching beheadings like we watch soap operas on TV today. I don’t even want to refer to our own gruesome plaasmoorde and incidents of necklace-killings. This kind of reality really urges me to despise Homo sapiens. Hoekom is so baie mense so verskriklik wreed?

Tony, my friend, as always, your in-depth research on assassinations and excellent presentation deserve hats off, bows, applause and request for encore. You are the best! Your hubber score is a living proof of HubPages’s absurd and ridiculous rating system. You should always be on 100. Liewe donkie, gaan kyk net wat se stront skryf sommige van die wat pal op honderd staan! (Sorry vir die plat Afrikaans :))) Lots of hugs from me to you and yours. Tot weersiens!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Quite a list you have here, Tony. I don't know if the killing of Mary queen of Scots could be considered an assassination by her relative, Elizabeth the 1st but it certainly changed history and before Disraeli's time, too. The reason for the royal death is a bit muddy to me in terms of legal rights. The bottom line was that Elizabeth, who had survived assassination attempts already, couldn't afford to have Mary around even in lock up as a focal point for Catholic sympathizers.

A history of assassination attempts would be interesting. There have been popes assassinated in past centuries and in our time one pope came close to being offed. This is the reason for the present day pope-mobile.

Yes, the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination did lead to the Great War. It is a rather odd thing since if you were to ask most Londoners, New Yorkers, Australians living anywhere, except on visit to the Balkans, where Sarajevo is very would have known or cared to know in the early months of 1914. The assassination did make headlines but no one seriously thought it would lead to a world war. So many treaties put together to stop war ended up bringing it on.

Lincoln's assassination came way too late to do anything for the south during the American Civil war. It, in fact, came after the war had end. Booth was a drunkard with sympathies for the south. He was also a stage actor who thought himself a coward for not going south during the war and joining the confederacy. Having shot Lincoln, Booth made a real mess of his escape. Even so, it was days later he was gunned down.

He knew what he had done was useless to the cause and said as much as he lay dying.

Kennedy's assassination and that of Marin Luther King was supposed to bring an end to the civil rights movement in the USA. This did not happen. King's death, however, did cause rioting in major cities in the USA.


James McV Sailor profile image

James McV Sailor 5 years ago from Northern California

A very good review Tony - I enjoyed it. As for Disraeli, I think what he meant was that what had occurred before (ie: history)was never changed by any assassination.... and doing so because of what had already occurred was pointless.... of course, every such act had a forward reaching effect.

Ok, now as to GUNS - I agree they are dangerous, or perhaps better described as efficient, but not nearly as dangerous as the people who wield them. While guns may have made it easier for lone assassines to carry out their deeds, this ease may also have had the effect of reducing bloodshed, since the alternatives used might have rather been a vest full of explosive or some other weapon of mass destruction. In the past of course there were swords, knives, crossbows, etc., and if all that failed then the perpetrator would just gather an army and wage war on his foe, resulting in untold thousands of innocent deaths.... nothing has really changed in human nature. Guns have just made the less capable more so.... not to say that the expression of such insanity (usually) is good, its not!

A sad fact of the argument is that criminals will always have guns. Mexico is a prime example where guns are illegal but thousands have been killed by them in the recent drug wars. If the police can't protect you, what are you to do but arm yourself?

I love a GOOD argument, and this is one that I fear will carry on for some time unfortunately. JM


gusripper profile image

gusripper 5 years ago

If politicians are not afraid god,then guns are the best way.But not for the innocents.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Wesman - obviously not. Candle holders and baseball bats are not designed for killing. Guns are. Guns have no other purpose but to kill. They are made to kill, they are sold to people who want to use them to kill. The arms manufacturers make sure that the demand for guns is maintained so they can continue to live their comfortable and safe lives far away from the effects of the guns they sell.

I'm not sure that I want to ban guns either. I want them to be strictly controlled and in the hands only of people who would need them to protect other citizens.

I think banning or prohibition is a two-edged sword, as the US found between the two World Wars with alcohol. And is to some extent finding now with drugs.

However, guns are more lethal than either drugs or alcohol, and, as I haved said, have no purpose other than to kill. So the sale of guns should at the very least be more controlled than the sale of alcohol or drugs. At the moment it is easier to get a gun than to get a drug, and perhaps even than to get a drink. That does not make sense whichever you look at it.

So no, baseball bats and candle holders should not be banned.

Swimming pool owners should be educated to keep them covered when not in use and held liable if a child drowns in an uncovered pool for which they are responsible. Parents should make sure that their children are never in or near a pool without supervision. That's just common sense.

Thanks again for the comments and discussion.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Martie - soos Clara in "7de Laan" wil ek se "jy my beste, beste vriend is!" Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment.

Why we as a species are so contradictory I don't know. Hitler was kind to children and loved his dogs.

We so often seem to be like Madame Defarge "quietly purling while the heads roll!" Ek weet nie. We dance around while people die in flames.

As for my Hubber score, I don't really know. I'm trying to just ignore it and keep on writing, maar soms moet ek erken dit voel nie lekker nie!

Thanks again my friend and may your writing go from strength to strength.

'Til next time!

Love and peace

Tony


amillar profile image

amillar 5 years ago from Scotland, UK

Thanks dallas93444 and Tony,

That's actually the most clear and concise answer I've had to the question yet, BTW.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Rod - thanks for adding so significantly to the knowledge on this Hub. I do appreciate that very much.

A Hub about attempted assassinations would be interesting, as would one about religious leaders being vicitms.

Thanks again for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

James - thanks so much for stopping by and leaving a great comment. I fear the debate will be long, as you say!

For me a very worrying factor is that gun ownership in the US grows at a rate far higher than the rate of population growth. Meaning I guess that people are buying more and more guns. And worldwide there seems to be a positive relationship between gun ownership rates and homicides.

Thanks again for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Gus - I'm quite honestly not sure I understand your comment, but thanks for it anyway! Perhaps you will come back and elaborate a bit. I would like that.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Amillar - glad you found our responses helpful!

Love and peace

Tony


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Hey Tony, I've got a ton of respect for you; but I'm glad you cleared that point up. . . about banning guns.

Guns are definitely designed to kill, no question about it. It's also unquestionable that lots of them are designed for killing PEOPLE. I'm not into that. I only get really, REALLY upset when I (wrongly or rightly) assume that someone just wants them all banned.

I'm not a big hunter, and I don't shoot anything (outside of targets) that I don't intend to eat. I don't hunt much, but I started hunting, and did it often as a very young man. I also like to think that I'll get back into that at some point, as I've nothing but large pastures in every direction, and we've even got a bit of a problem with an overpopulation of wild boars in the entire state of Texas.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

I guess now that I'm cooled down again I can talk some more; and I hope you don't mind. I think that so far as the discussion in the comments go, we're discussing (between you and I) more concerning handguns than rifles or shotguns, or sporting and hunting style guns. .. . .and I have to say, that I do agree with you on restricting those. . .and I don't own a pistol, but if I did have money to "burn" I'd probably own a few of them.

I'm always especially concerned for women, and were I married, then I'd probably nearly insist that my wife carry one, and know how to use it very well; so even though I'm not so frightened of anyone to carry a pistol, I'd still want to have the option of buying one, and for women especially to be able to legally carry those weapons, and those are only really meant to kill people.

Drugs? Well, I can't speak for your local at all, but I live just outside of Dallas, Texas; and I can get just about any drug I want in ten minutes to an hour; but honestly, if I needed or wanted to buy a black market pistol. .. . .I wouldn't know who to call, or ask about those things.

Best wishes.


lionel1 profile image

lionel1 5 years ago

We appreciate your coverage of assassinations and all of that work you've put in to bring us yet another remarkable hub.

You have really generated a lot of reaction with your hub 'Guns and politics - a short history of assassinations'

The comments to your hub were interesting with the killing of Mary queen of Scots, the confiscation of firearms, and Ferdinand's death.

Thank you very much for bringing us another great hub.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Wesman - thanks for stopping by again! And thanks for the kind comments.

I think where I'm coming from is that guns and the kind of gung-ho culture that surrounds them - like you're not a man if you don't have a gun! - just add to the culture of violence by encouraging the belief that we can win arguments by shooting someone.

There has to be a better way, but while guns are relatively easy to obtain, they provide an "easy" answer.

As for arming your wife (if you had one) the statistics are not promising in that regard. Most guns kept for self-defence end up being used against the person trying to defend himself or herself.

About the availability of guns I would assume that to obtain a gun legally is easier than to get illegal drugs, which is insane. It should be much easier to get drugs than to get a gun. Though I'm not saying it should be easy to get either. Drugs, like guns, seem to encourage a culture of violence. But banning them seems not to be working either. So a whole re-think about that needs to happen.

I do not and never will own a gun, and I don't do drugs either. They are both lethal. I can't see the sense in banning drugs but letting guns be freely available.

Thanks again

Love and peace

Tony


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

I well know how media and music via media influence culture. I'd say that it's much more "manly" to NOT feel the need to carry a gun. Isn't it strange how things get so twisted around?


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Lionel - thanks for stopping by. Your words warm my heart! Mary Queen of Scots was not shot, she was beheaded, so I did not include her in my Hub. But I'm thinking about writing one about her sometime.

Thanks again for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


Storytellersrus profile image

Storytellersrus 5 years ago from Stepping past clutter

Hey Tony! You hit the mark with this hub- what a great discussion you've inspired. Of course here in the US we are reeling from Tucson and the murder by gun of little Christina Taylor Green. What a heartbreak. I will have to come back and read more. We have started a blizzard since I read the first line of your hub. Is that metaphorical? Hugs, Barb


Peggy W profile image

Peggy W 5 years ago from Houston, Texas

I purposely held off reading this hub as I knew that it would be informative but certainly not "fun" reading...and that is for sure! As Storytellersrus just stated, the shootings in Tucson, Arizona are still so fresh in everyone's minds here in the U.S.

You have a firestorm of comments here and I can easily see both sides of the issue. In Houston a store owner and his wife were recently confronted by 3 gun toting robbers and worse. He was able to defend himself and according to all reports undoubtedly survived because he had a gun for self defense.

I absolutely think that background checks should be done before people can purchase guns and it is insane to sell semi-automatic or automatic guns to anyone (outside of the police and military) as they are NOTHING but killing machines.

We do not own guns but were at a dinner years ago with a judge and some lawyers who all touted the fact that they would want their wives to have access to one if their homes were broken into while people were inside.

Since this congresswoman was shot, some of our congressmen and women are now considering carrying guns. Others already do. This is SO SAD!

This entire discussion is sad.

There are crazies in this world who will find a way to kill if they are bent upon doing so and will use one means or another. And as many have pointed out, the criminals will always find a way to get guns.

I like your sign off best...Love and peace. Wish that prevailed everywhere. There would be no need for this type of discussion!


michael ely profile image

michael ely 5 years ago from Scotland

Hi tonymac04, This is a great Hub with a lot of interesting facts. I have often been fascinated by this kind of thing, where one persons actions can have a major effect on a country or sometimes the whole world. Michael.


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 5 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

Hi Tony - you've got a good discussion going here! I can see no justification for allowing anyone except the military and law enforcement officers access to assault weapons and automatic hand guns, neither of which have any sport or recreational function.

But after that, it gets complicated, sadly.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Wesman - thanks, yes I would agree. Thanks for stoping by again.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Barbara - thanks for the great comment. And perhaps the blizzrd is metaphorical! I think the events of 8 Jan in Tucson are so tragic. And so unncessary.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Peggy - thanks for a wonderful comment! I agree - it is so sad that this discussion even needs to happen. But, as you say, there are carzies out there.

I don't call for the banning of guns except, as you say, automatics or semi-automatics which should only be available to police and army personnel. But all other guns should only be sold under very strict conditions.

Banning things doesn't usually work - people only find ingenious ways to get around the ban - look at the drug scene!

Thanks again for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Michael - thanks for the kind words. Glad you enjoyed.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Dave - thanks for the comment, and yes, it does get complicated. Hope I don't give the impression here that I think it's all simple, cut and dried, type stuff?

Anyway thanks again.

Love and peace

Tony


Peggy W profile image

Peggy W 5 years ago from Houston, Texas

Your comment hits the target perfectly...no pun intended.


lightning john profile image

lightning john 5 years ago from Florida

Tony, Once while returning to my vehicle in a dark parking lot at 2 a.m. I was approached by four thugs, one of them proclaiming,"we are gonna kill you"!

When they saw me pull out my Ruger, they left really fast. No one got hurt. The police were not contacted and I'm alive now, and can share this with you. I can go visit my son I watched him turn 21 last May. If I had not of been armed and ready, he may have not had a father the last 12 years.


Micky Dee profile image

Micky Dee 5 years ago

I'll be glad when I can never see a sling-shot.


mysterylady 89 profile image

mysterylady 89 5 years ago from Florida

As always, Tony, you have written an interesting, informative hub. This one certainly stirred up a lot of controversy. I could not help but think of the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy."


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Lightning John - thanks for stopping by and telling of your personal experience. You are a lucky one indeed! Most of the statistics show a very different picture in which those with guns quite often have their guns turned against them.

I'm really glad it didn't work out that way for you.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Micky - thanks good buddy for stopping by. I support your sentiments!

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Mysterylady - thank you very much indeed for your kind words which I deeply appreciate.

Thanks for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


epigramman profile image

epigramman 5 years ago

.....awesome hub Mister Tony - you've done your homework and you've done it well - but let's face it - guns kill people. period!

Homework assignment for you: 1. Was Oswald the lone gunman?

2. Did Sirhan Sirhan have another gunman with him in the pantry?

3. Did James Earl Ray pull the trigger and if he did - who put him up to it?


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Colin - thanks for the apprecitive comment. I will get onto the homework assignment immediately. I have some ideas about these three questions but will have to do a bit of digging to give the answers the seriousness they deserve. Thanks for asking.

Love and peace

Tony


BobbiRant profile image

BobbiRant 5 years ago from New York

People bent on killing will always find a way to get guns, usually buying them off the street sellers in alleys and the like. So any gun control is useless because people can 'snap' at anytime, one never knows and those determined to kill will always find a way to do so. Great hub.


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

I am not really sure what to say on this topic. Years ago I would have said that we need to stop the spread of guns and we should have limits on who should be able to own for example .50 caliber guns, which can shoot through walls.

Now, I think we might need them at some point in the future. It's sad but look at Libya now ... they need them.

Cheers.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Bobbi - you are so right. I am rather passionately opposed to guns precisely for the reasons you mention. I have never and will never own one. The issue of gun control is very complex and is more than a simple banning of guns. However I do think that possession of guns should be at least more difficult than possession of drugs. They are, after all, more lethal. But the reality seems to be the opposite.

There should be more stigma attached to having a gun than to having a drug like marijuana. The gun is far, far more dangerous than marijuana. And yet governments spend billions on the fight against drugs. A fight that is losing every day. And guns continue to kill and maim. Insane.

Still, it is a complex issue which needs to be debated constantly.

Thanks for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa Author

Mr Happy - in the right hands and for the right purposes no doubt guns are useful. It just seems to me that far too often they are in the wrong hands for the wrong reasons.

Thanks for stopping by.

Love and peace

Tony


Mico Sam profile image

Mico Sam 5 years ago from Irvine, CA

I really enjoyed reading your hub. Guns have always been a part of politics. http://www.micocrane.com

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working