The people of Warsaw agree with which - the Nazi gun control act of 1938 led to the Holocaust or they agree it had nothing to do with anything that happened subsequently?

You DO know, right, that the 1938 change in Nazi gun control to being MORE lenient came AFTER the shooting of a Nazi by Jewish teen Herschel Grunzspan with a revolver, which was the catalyst for Kristallnacht. The change in the law came after Kristallnacht by a few weeks, which puts it at the end of 1938.

And of course it had nothing whatsoever to do with Poland; I'm always disappointed with how many people don't know where Warsaw is located. Or that Poland had some 4 million Jews, in contrast to the less than half a million in Germany.

I agree with everything you wrote

It is easy to make the wrong assumption, so better to ask than to get it wrong!

There is no way to know how history might have played differently. Hitler could have been assassinated. might have resisted more effectively.

The one thing it is, is pointless conjecture.

Our government and citizenry, as flawed as they are, are less likely (IMHO) to go full monty on wholesale extermination of a class or race in my opinion. Comparisons of anything happening in the country to the Holocaust diminishes what happened to the Jews. Slavery is the only thing that compares.

Do I think would try something similarly evil if given the opportunity, sure. Is it Obama? Fuck no.

Basically the whole gun control / Nazi thing is a lousy argument ; there are ample superior, contemporary, and valid gun-rights arguments that can be made. The Nazi argument is the caliber thinking that goes into drafting the AWB

iiibbb: There is no way to know how history might have played differently. Hitler could have been assassinated. might have resisted more effectively.

There is 'no way to know how history might have played different' only to the extent of incidentals. The main nazi imperialistic plot would've still occurred.
Had jewish risen up en masse in 1939 or 1940 in germany, the nazi reichswehr (home defense) would've been given more leeway to eliminate them in reprisals. Jewish disarmed in conquered areas were not subjected to what is considered modern gun control efforts, but were subjected to rules of conquest, which are practiced by most all conquerors in order to subdue resistance.

As far as assassinating hitler:
.... there were over 40 documented attempts on Hitler’s life. Assassins ranged from simple craftsmen to high-ranking soldiers in {hitler's} own military. Aided by cutting-edge CGI, security experts explain why the plots failed;
Historians theorize how history would have been altered had just one of the killers eliminated Hitler. This documentary from National Geographic examines the numerous historical plots to kill the Fuhrer and why they floundered. The program’s panel of experts also discusses how these plans might have succeeded–and how Hitler’s assassination might have changed history.

The one thing it is, is pointless conjecture

.. yet wayno & the far right never give up, on pointless conjecture.
.. why does josef goebbels come to mind? und julius streicher.

.. yet wayno & the far right never give up, on pointless conjecture.
.. why does josef goebbels come to mind? und julius streicher.

I've said it before. The current groups steering either side of the gun control debate are really bad for their causes. They are clumsy, have tin ears, and uses bad arguments when there are ample arguments on both sides for lots of "reasonable" measures. However, with both sides being so unreasonable at times I can hardly blame the gun-rights side's intransigence.

Also given the length of time that this debate spans, only the really zealous people have the energy to stay in it, and they're the ones who are going to come up with this kind of argument... because they'll glom onto anything if it'll indoctrinate a few ignorant people (on either side).

I'm not at all so sure that the pro-gun control side is being unreasonable.

... you should see some of the shit pro-gun control types have said about anyone remotely gun-rights oriented. As an extreme it is more off the hook than anything said on these boards.... although nationally, the dialog chose by those at the helm of gun rights advocacy is more unreasonable. But again, after the turd that was the 94 AWB legislation... can't say I blame them that much.

Pro-gun control still has a lot of pointless things in their proposals in order to appear to be doing something. An argument can be made about magazine capacity, about background checks, sure. Pistol grips? Barrel shrouds? Ammo bans in lieu of gun bans. Your post about gun rights people being populated largely by fetishists. Give me a break.

If we could take Cuomo, Feinstein, LePierre, and Nugent and people like them out of the conversation we could have much more effective dialog.

I didn't quantify how many fetishist populate gun rights arguments.

However, I would put those who believe that their handguns would be effective in overthrowing or stopping the U.S. government to be among those who demonstrate they are delusional in relationship to their firearms.

I don't think either Cuomo or Feinstein are a problem.

Here is the reason I would argue that pistol grips and barrel shrouds should be banned, and magazine size should be limited - spray fire that is only slightly slower than full auto:

Sack - another bullseye, re so-called 'semi-auto'



The cartoon is followed by half a dozen videos of people firing assault style weapons, mostly Bushmaster AR 15s, using nothing other than their thumbs and a belt loop. The pistol grip and the barrel shrouds are essential to being able to fire in that manner.

Here is just one of those videos from the penigma post, demonstrating shooting from the hip:

follow the link to see the others

and here is one shoulder bump firing, no special equipment:



The recent interviews from the very first Sandy Hook responders seem to be describing a fairly similar pattern of relatively rapid fire, and the positions of the bodies of the children in at least one of the rooms appears to indicate that the teacher and all of the kids were crowded into a corner, and that Adam Lanza simply spray fired into them, resulting in only one survivor in the heap who Lanza appears to have believed was dead.

In case you were wondering what my beef was with spray fire.

I don't see any legitimate use for armor piercing ammunition, or any ammunition that could be used against law enforcement that would penetrate standard LEO protection.

Without large capacity magazine, would anyone care if someone bump fired an AR-15 from their hip? Probably not. But so long as there are so many, and so many instances of assault style weapons being used in crimes and against law enforcement, there is a clear need to take that kind of action. Other countries don't allow assault style weapons, and it works very well. There is no good argument for us not to similarly be responsible, while still permitting many other kinds of firearms and related equipment.

I'd add silencers to the list btw. I think the NRA's claim they protect kids hearing is stupid - so do other kinds of protection. Silencers are unique to certain categories of crime, and work to prevent detection of shootings like many of those used in urban areas to monitor gun fire where not having that information would impeded effective law enforcement.

perhaps basing your information knowledgeable sources, like gun blogs, instead of propaganda sites or ignorant pundits.

the guy firing from the hip was using a machine gun, not bump firing. What countries don't allow "assault style weapons"? Canada and the US are not unique. Some countries limit them to target competitors who use them, Sweden for example. This one is made specifically for the Canadian market. It only requires an "unrestricted" PAL, which means the RCMP views it the same as a bolt or lever action.
https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/631/cz-858-2-tactical-rifle-with-fixed-stock/

The French and Finnish governments disagree with you on this. Not only are silencers unregulated in those, among a few others, their use is actually mandatory in some hunting areas in Finland and Norway. They are also required on some French target ranges. All gangbangers would have to do is use duct tape and 2liter soda bottle. Always wear ear protection for your hearing.

The guy firing from the hip is using an AR 15 Bushmaster.

All of the weapons in the videos are using semi-automatic assault style weapons. There are literally hundreds, easily thousands of such videos on line. I stopped counting.

A sample list of countries that ban civilian style assault weapons - a list which is by no means exhaustive or in any particular order:
Norway
Japan
Australia
Costa Rica
Serbia
Turkey
UK
Germany
Canada
New Zealand
Israel

I'd have to double check, but I'm reasonably sure that most of the EU countries have either outright bans on assault style weapons in the hands of civilians, or very strict regulation that limits those to very few people.

We're not France, they use different monitoring devices in crime prevention and they have a much denser population distribution in their country than we tend to do here. While there are jerry-rigged silencers they don't work as well or for as long as commercially made ones, and that still doesn't address the legitimate opposition by law enforcement for how silencers are used here that reduce effective crime reduction.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 02:35 AM - Edit history (1)

the title said so. It is an AR style as designed by Eugene Stoner, but I doubt it was made by Bushmaster. Most likely it was made by Colt or Armalite. Bushmaster just happens to be the name of the manufacture of the gun used in Newtown. It could have been just as easily been made by Rock River or Olympic Arms.
Costa Rica has a higher murder rate than we do. In fact, it is twice our murder rate.
As I showed you from a Canadian gun dealer's website, you are wrong. Another "assault style" rifle is a semi auto of the Isreali Tabor. All of the ones exported for civilian sales went to Canada. Some are restricted and some are not. Few are prohibited.

I

No they don't. The EU regulations are mostly age requirements and central registration. Germany might, they do allow semi autos that are not so cosmetically challenged.

I suggest you cite your sources and double check those. Just because some blogger claims something doesn't make it so. It seems your sources are questionable at best.

silencers don't work the way they do in the movies. How do you come to this conclusion since you seem to lack even basic knowledge of firearms or firearms laws. Using your logic, we don't live in the EU or Australia either so why should we adopt restrictive laws similar to theirs. Until 1993 Tasmania allowed private ownership of machine guns. How many crimes were committed with legal machine guns?

but duty calls

But just to nitpick a couple of things.

1) If he herded them into a corner, the difference between firing from the hip and having to fire from the shoulder is that he would have had more hits firing from the shoulder.

2) "Armor Piercing Ammunition" capable of penetrating police protection. You do realize that you wear different protection depending on whether you're trying to protect yourself from rifle bullets than from handgun bullets? "Capable of penetrating police protection" just defined just about every major big-game hunting caliber available. The fact that you just throw that out there means that you are not reasonable because you are not speaking from a position of knowing enough to know something so basic. You seem to have a conclusion you're trying to justify with data. You are not letting the data guide you to a conclusion. Both sides are guilty of it, and I'm not here to defend that side. I'm pro-gun sure, I have my reasons for positions I've taken, but I am not an NRA robot.

3) Silencers. This is a dumb talking point from either side. They are not used in crime. Anyone on a rampage with sensitive ears will wear earplugs. You might be happy if they had "silencers" anyway. They bleed a little energy off the bullet and reduce muzzle velocity--- theoretically making the gun less lethal.

4) Cuomo - ramrodded that legislation. There is no away around it. That is no way to lead no matter what side of the debate you're on. If you're bypassing committees to ram something through; you are extreme IMHO. I'd say that about either side.

5) Regarding your cartoon. It has always been my position that the reasonable level of armament is common hunting rounds, and whatever a patrol officer would have in their cruiser. This is actually a more restrictive position than a lot of gun control people would take if one were to really contemplate what I am saying -- so if congress wants standardize the arms that a militia member should have... so be it... but the police should be limited to the same weapons. However, from a self-defense standpoint if it's good enough for an officer it should be good enough for me. They carry a sidearm as a defensive weapon.


I have to work... I might read any response this evening.

... there are many models of .22 target rifles that can no longer be bought and sold because the magazines hold more than seven rounds. Eight-shot .22 revolvers fall under the same restriction. These are not "assault weapons," and they are not crime guns. These restrictions are petty, punitive, and pointless. Oh yes: and unreasonable.

I'd go even further, and argue that it is likely to promote more people who would otherewise be law abiding to be scoff laws.

But on the other hand, there was an excellent argument made that the 13th bullet that killed the little girl at the Gabby Gifford shooting made the difference between her being alive or dead.

Loughner was only stopped because he had to reload.

So, while it will always be arbitrary where to draw the line, given there are now AR-15 pistols and other assault-style pistols I can understand the arguments for settling on a lower rather than higher magazine size to try to address the problem guns. Therefore it is not really true that this is a petty, punitive or pointless restriction.

Isn't it true that most revolvers are five or six shot? And isn't it possible to either find smaller magazines for 22 target rifles? If so, after the ban has been in effect for say one legislative cycle, I would argue that the better alternative to fighting such a ban completely might be to amend the legislation so that such weapons as the target rifles can be considered legal so long as the magazines used with them are smaller.

That would seem to me to be the better compromise between those who want to use those weapons you mention, and those trying to come up with solutions that work.

In that, we are 100% in agreement. In fact, NY is not prepared or inclined to aggressively enforce this provision. The net effect will be a law that is widely ignored, not a good precedent to set.


The problem with quantifying which bullet killed whom is that it suggests that somehow the first few casualties are acceptable.


Arguably, Loughner was stopped because he made the extreme tactical error of engaging a crowd of people at close range. In such a scenario, a shooter could expect to be physically attacked from any side while still shooting. The Washington Post timeline of the shooting states that he made a magazine change, but the new magazine failed to feed a round properly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/giffords-shooting-timeline/

If this is accurate, then it was a mechanical failure that stopped him, not the intervention of the woman who ripped the other magazine from his hand. Large-capacity magazines are more prone to mechanical failure because of the extreme mechanical demands placed on their springs.


Just so we're clear, you do realize that magazine capacity limits are independent of specific models of guns, right? So what you are saying is that because there are pistols that are chambered in rifle calibers, we should restrict all pistol magazines to seven or fewer?

AR-15 pistols are extremely rare; .22 caliber handguns like the Ruger MK II/III exist in the millions, and take 10-round magazines. Owners of these pistols in NY are no longer able to buy new magazines for their pistols -- and magazines are subject to wear -- nor are they able to sell their pistols in-state with the 10-round magazines. A pistol without a magazine is useless. I believe this is one of the grounds in the legal challenge to NY's new law: that it represents a de facto "taking" of previously legally-held property.


Larger-caliber revolvers are five or six-shot. Many .22 caliber revolvers were designed to take advantage of the small size of the round, and hold 8, 10, or even 12 rounds. We're talking about firearms like this:



This was never considered strange or dangerous before. Now it's illegal in NY -- grandfathered if you own it, but illegal to buy, sell, or transfer henceforth. Essentially a delayed-action ban. I realize that words like "excessive" and "punitive" are subjective, but virtually every gun owner thinks that this ban is both of those things.

As for the .22 rifles, again, remember that it is the magazine that is banned, not the firearm that holds it. For some rifles, smaller magazines exist. For others, there are none, and probably never will be, given economies of scale in manufacture and the fact that no manufacturer is going to produce a magazine that will only be used for a niche firearm in one of the 50 states, especially since the legal limit that they would be building to, at some start-up expense, could be arbitrarily changed by another piece of blitzkrieg legislation like the SAFE Act. Who's to say the next limit won't be five, or even three? The sad fact is that no producer of such rifles ever imagined that their rifle would be targeted by "common sense" legislation. For example, the new Browning T-bolt Sporter is a .22 rifle that is intended for target shooting and hunting squirrels and other small game:



It comes with a proprietary 10-round magazine. It is highly unlikely that any other magazine will ever be developed and produced for it. If you live in NY, you can buy this rifle before April 15, but when the full force of SAFE Act kicks in, you will never again be able to buy one or to buy a replacement magazine for it should you lose or break the magazine it came with. Sure, there are other rifles you can buy, but I have to ask what compelling public need makes this rifle to dangerous for the good people of New York to own? Ten rounds in a magazine that only works in one model of bolt-action .22 rifle?

This legislation is tone-deaf, excessive, and yes, punitive. It represents culture war at its worst.

but it is clear that when someone has to pause, either to reload or because of a jam, that it gives help to the victims to either flee or try to stop the shooter.

I'd like to see the number of rounds vary upwards a little but not all that much.

Here is why, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/no-right-to-bear-assault-weapons.html?_r=0 (words in bold my added emphasis) :

The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.

It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.

Not entirely clear, no. The few seconds that it takes the shooter to reload are unlikely to be consequential -- unless, of course, someone is firing back at the shooter. Also, as I mentioned before, extreme high-capacity magazines, like the 33-round in Loughner's Glock, are actually more jam-prone than standard magazines, which for most handguns would hold 15 to 17 rounds.

I submit that the court's findings, as reported by the NYT, ignore those facts. As for the Times' assessment of semi-automatic weapons, their use of the word "spray" is intentionally misleading, since only full-auto firearms can be said to "spray bullets." The metaphor suggests a garden hose, which continuously emits water as long as the "trigger" is held down. This is not the case with semi-auto firearms.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Means to spray fire semi-auto range from using your thumb or a rubber band or various other means, to special stocks that allow you to do so. The courts were correct in noting that these weapons and magazines result in more victims with more injuries / more bullet holes in them. It was considered to be extremely well proven in the arguments and submissions of evidence.

Spray fire only means lots bullets coming out of a weapon in a very short period of time; it has no connection to use as a garden hose is used, waving it around.

However, it is appearing that is how Adam Lanza gunned down the children in one of the classrooms at Sandy Hook, based on reports of rapid and continuous gun fire, and the fact that the kids were all huddled with their teacher in one corner of the room. That was the class where one young girl was covered in blood, but under bodies, not actually shot miraculously. Lanza appears to have taped large capacity magazine together butt end to butt end, so they could be reversed quickly for rapid insertion into the Bushmaster. He had with him over 400 rounds of ammo, all or most of them prepared in that manner.

Spray fire is also reported by police in how semi-auto assault weapons, either rifle or pistol, are used against them.

I researched people making videos or writing about spray fire, how to and demonstration, and quit counting after a fast 400, with thousands, arguably tens of thousands more I could count - but that gets tedious after a few hundred. There are clearly many more out there available to the public, and it is clearly a widespread practice that ranges from free, to cheap, to inexpensive, but all readily available.

I hope I don't come across as too 'sharp', but after a certain number of conversations where people who presume they know more about firearms than I do patronizingly tell me this is not possible, that it is a myth, I get a bit impatient with hearing or seeing that.

And in every case where I have provided evidence of this practice, the patronizing person simply leaves the discussion, unable to refute that spray fire, often under the term bump fire, is ONLY limited by the capacity of bullets fed into the weapon. A semi-auto assault-style weapon will fire all the bullets in a 100 round drum magazine at only slightly slower speed than full auto. The difference to someone without a stop watch is almost undetectable.

You saying, um, well they might be wrong, is not refutation.

And the NY Times was not misleading either.

Explain to me how these weapons in the videos below are not spray fire:

It requires the shooter to anchor the firearm in an awkward position, making it impossible to aim accurately and making it impossible for the shooter to maneuver while firing. It is also considerably less reliable than plain semi-auto fire: difficult to initiate and prone to jamming.

Bump-fire with an external device like a slide-stock is closer to actual full-auto fire, but is still slower and considerably less reliable. That said, I have no problem with bump-fire devices being subject to the same scrutiny and restrictions as full-auto firearms. It's essentially a red herring, though, since none of the spree killers have made use of a bump-fire device. In fact, I have never heard of bump-fire being used in the commission of a crime. Illegal full-auto weapons, yes, but not bump-fire.

I will stand by my criticism of the Times: When the average person reads the phrase "spray bullets," he or she envisions full-auto fire.

the difference in the rate of fire between full auto and this is miniscule.

It has been used often enough OTHER than as a parlor trick, however much you want it to be so.

Clearly there are ways to rapid fire a large quantity of ammo with relative accuracy, but arguably as with any spray fire,
it is intended for use against multiple targets very different from either target shooting or say sniper fire.

It appears that Adam Lanza engaged in spray fire, so I believe your assumptions about it are mistaken and factually inaccurate.

The court decision regarding this was considered particularly careful, accurate, and substantive.
Maybe you should read the decision and familiarize yourself with the contents before dismissing it based only on your own prejudice.

You might want to look at the criminal studies on the use of assault style weapons as they are used in crimes as well.

However much you might want it to be so, this is no red herring.

Just to clarify, are you claiming that bump-fire has been used in mass shootings? I have never heard this, and would like to see your source for this information.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Against a roomful of defenseless targets at close range, semi-auto fire will be devastating. There will be a target almost everywhere the shooter looks. Precision aiming using the sights is not necessary because of the extremely short ranges. This is what military trainers used to call "point-shooting" -- you point and you shoot. (I'm sorry for the clinical description of what was a horrific nightmare, but that is the relevant terminology.) However, it is not indiscriminate; targets are selected. Aimed fire will hit more targets than un-aimed fire.


Again, the term "spray fire" is undefined. Do you mean full-auto bump-fire? I have not heard any suggestion that this is what he used, and I very much doubt that he did. If he had, chances are that more would have survived: his accuracy would have been worse, and he would have expended his stock of ammunition much sooner. The greatest likelihood is that he used rapid point-shooting. Is this what you mean by "spray fire"?

The military uses full-auto mostly for what they call "suppressive fire." The tactic is to fill the air with flying bullets in order to inhibit enemy movement by making them seek cover. Full-auto fire is inherently inaccurate, and bump-fire even more so. Furthermore, regular semi-auto cannot even come close to full-auto rates of fire.


I know that rifles -- including the subset "assault weapons" -- accounted for less than 3% of all murders in 2011, fewer than fists, hands, and feet. But if you have some relevant studies to suggest, I'd be happy ro read them.

Video 1- look at the amount of time the guy has to fuck around before he actually sets the gun up to do it. Spends more time looking at the weapon than he does at his aim point.

Video 2- A lot of fucking around, and then how is he going to aim that? Totally not controlled.

Video 3- Certainly, more controlled, but still not sure how he's aiming

Video 4- I am sort of amazed and not amazed that the ATF approved that. But why not make a law that bans devices that rapidly oscillate a trigger? Do you notice that the shooter has to push forward on the rifle when they use that thing. I bet it takes quite a bit of practice. At any rate, if you wanted to write legislation to ban devices like that (and other designs I've see) go for it. They don't only work on ARs you realize?

At any rate. This is another case where it comes down to limiting magazine size. I've got no problem limiting magazine sizes to a point (I'd make that point around 15 rounds). I've got no problem limiting the total number of rounds that can be loaded in magazines regardless of their capacity, away from a residence or shooting range.

Also, if you think about it, I'd be happy if a rampager were bump firing--- they'll run out of ammo quicker without really being able to aim. Enough time for people to escape or subdue.

It just comes down to magazine capacity.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

many of them are also using a new gun for the first time. They have no need or interest in acting more quickly.

Which shows how quickly and easily they can learn the technique which is why I posted them.

There are plenty of videos of people more expert and practiced with this technique firing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before dismissing all bump fire based on such limited information.

You cannot dispute that these firearms discharge a lot of ammunition very rapidly and, effectively, continuously.

I've been using guns for 15 years and have never bump-fired anything. I reckon I would look just as awkward as anyone in the first videos.

I see no quick learning of a technique. I don't even see it as a technique. It's a "technique" to empty a magazine and not hit anything maybe.

If there's such a plethora of masters of bump fire, you should have posted them rather than these dweebs.


I don't dispute that you can bump-fire a semi-auto. I do dispute that this is a unique feature of these semi-automatic firearms. You can do it with any of them, with or without a pistol stock.

The dead kids at Sandy Hook are more than enough proof that firing this way hits the intended target.

If you look at a lot of these videos, many of them are people trying this for the first time, while others are intended to show how quickly one can learn to do it, as a demonstration, followed by video of someone doing so for the first time.

Many of the other videos are of the 'this is my new AR 15, and my first time firing it, including bump firing'.

It is something that seems to be a subject people want to memorialize on their first time doing this.

I posted a random sampling. If you want to see more, do your own search.

These dweebs as you call it are a significant part of the gun culture and of gun owners. You can't dismiss them from being part of the problem that is the concern of gun control.

There are a variety of features which are directly related to the ease of spray fire. Do your own homework on it; if you are unsuccessful, get back to me by email, and I will provide you some sources.

Barrel shrouds are another feature which facilitate bump firing / spray firing, due to the barrel heat generated by that speed of fire.

It is a problem specifically with semi auto assault style weapons. But if you have video of other firearms that can fire without interruption until the magazine is exhausted, please post them.

But the bottom line is that spray fire / bump fire is an issue, a problem, something that needs solution for the problem stated above:
the problem is rapid fire that results in more victims per incident, more wounds per victim per shooting.

Ruger Mini 14 with a standard stock. Not on anyone's ban list.

Bump firing is not a unique feature to the so-called "assault weapon" platform.

You're either proposing a ban on semi-auto... which will never fly

Or

You will limit mag size. Which I proposed a decent compromise that is superior to Feinstein's proposed magazine size limit... which people on both sides might agree to

but I believe a mini-14 may be on someone's ban list.

But certainly you agree that bump firing is a form of spray fire, with spray fire being defined as essentially continuous fire of all the ammunition in the magazine?

with wooden stocks are not, ones with folding stocks etc are on Di Fi's ban list. They are unrestricted, as in need only a non restricted PAL in Canada last time I checked and legal in Norway last I checked.

But you can go check

bump fire a pistol



a Remington 597

is an assault rifle, modeled after the military m-14.

I believe under the new definition bans any assault style weapon that accepts a large capacity magazine, and that some, but not all of these would fall under that definition.

If you can only fire 5 rounds, who cares how fast?

The defining issue is firing a lot of rounds very quickly.

If you can't bump fire a LOT of rounds, if the weapon cannot accept a large capacity magazine, you do not meet the definition of spray fire. Further, those weapons that most lend themselves to spray fire have specific characteristics that make that easier.

My understanding of the new definitions in the ban are that they make this clearer, more definitive, and harder to get around.

I don't see that being applied to all semi-automatics, because not all of them can accept a high capacity mag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

it is a semi automatic carbine.

Actually, the definitions are very vague and can be used to ban anything.

a problem weapon - notably the mass shooting by Ander Breivik. Further is has been described as
[link:Norway Shooter's Mini-14: |'the poor man's assault rifle'.
]

The "Poor Man's Assault Rifle"
The attack in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik, apparently involving a Ruger Mini-14 assault rifle, is only the most horrific of the mass shootings involving the company's products.

Founded in 1949, the "corporate motto" of Sturm, Ruger & Co. is "Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens." But Sturm, Ruger firearms are also often found in the hands of mass shooters: last year's attack at a Connecticut beer distributor, leaving eight victims dead and two wounded; the 1999 shooting at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Texas, leaving seven victims dead and seven wounded; Oregon's Thurston High School in 1998, leaving four dead and 22 wounded; the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting, leaving six dead and 19 wounded; the 1991 Luby's massacre, leaving 23 victims dead and 20 wounded; and, a 1987 shootout at a Florida shopping center, leaving six dead, including two police officers.

In his book Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns, noted gun expert Duncan
Long details the Mini-14's military heritage from the U.S. military's M14 battle rifle:

"The Mini-14 is not just a scaled-down M14; it's also an improved version....Ruger's Mini-14, which was aimed at (and for a time, sold only to) the law-enforcement and military markets, was introduced in 1972. Because demand was great in the civilian market, the 'sporterized' semiauto version with a 5-round magazine was introduced in 1976. Though no large military sales ever were secured, the rifle was very competitively priced. The public and police markets have made it a commercial success...."

"assault style" and "assault weapon" are both meaningless propaganda terms and I refuse to use them. I also take the arguments of those who do less seriously because it shows they are repeating talking points without knowing what they are talking about. Just like concentrating on "gun violence" instead of "violence" is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. As for "characteristics that would "make it easier" how about actually learning from people and sources that actually know what they are talking about instead of the dishonest scribblings from the likes of Josh Sugarmann.

I didn't say they were not used in mass murder. I simply pointed out they are not machine guns. Magazines accessories, one can just because a five round magazine was included does not mean that a ten round can not be made for it. The original, and unsuccessful, military version was select fire making it a true assault rifle, it also would be regulated under the National Firearms Act.

As pointed out by more knowledgeable people, bump fire is a parlor trick and does not do what you seem to think it does. As for the guy in Norway, he could have used a single shot or a crossbow and still get the same results, given that an armed response was 90 minutes away.

We are talking military similar weapons.

The terms assault weapon and assault style weapons have received court recognition.

Whether you like it or not, they are used in a clear way and will continue to do so.

An NO, had Breivik NOT used something that fired that rapidly, he could have been overpowered. He was very clear about what he chose and why he chose it. Among other things, it would have taken so much longer to even try to attack that he would not have been able to target so many people. He himself noted this in his plans and in his testimony.

He was very clear that if he could not have obtained a cheaper version - his words - of a Bushmaster AR-15, he would have been much more concerned about succeeding - in other words, it would have made it less likely, considerably less likely, that he would have even attempted it.

That was his justification for waiting to do so until after he had acquired the weapons that included the assault STYLE mini-M14.

Further that short list of mass shootings and the numerous other correlations to crime of these kinds of weapons make restricting or even outright banning them legitimate, regardless of whether or not you are happy about it.

Your approval or consent is not required; neither is mine. It is not a decision made by individuals. It is a decision made by overwhelming public support.

We are talking military similar weapons.

where? They have not been used in a clear way because the definitions vary.

assuming the kids would have been inclined to do so. I actually doubt it if he was doing at more than very close range.

once again Bushmaster is a name of a manufacture, just like Rock River, Colt, Olympic Arms. You are repeating pundits without looking things up for yourself.

he used a semi automatic rifle with a wooden stock. In another post you said Norway banned "assault weapons" which is it? That meets no definition of "assault style"

they are almost never used in street crime, as the FBI UCR shows.

There is no overwhelming public support. How much of that public assumes they are talking about machine guns, since Bloomburg has been implying that they are talking about such. Public opinion has moved very little if at all since Sandy Hook and all of the ranting and disinformation from TV pundits and politicians.

There were both adults and teens on the Island where Breivik did his shooting, and some of them DID try to stop him.

There seems very clear public support for not having weapons that spray fire that are quite properly and adequately defined as assault or assault style weapons.

The courts have already accepted this description.

You are quite wrong about public opinion. Poll after poll demonstrates that.

These guns are used in more than enough crimes to justify a ban; that was already established by the October 2011 decision on them and on expanded capacity magazines.

You are clearly not fact based in your views or arguments.

There was no relationship between gun control and ANY action taken by Hitler OR the rest of the nazis.

the difference is, I go technical experts and do not depend on blogs etc. I also go to as many sources as possible. Those who only listen to MSNBC or Current are no better off than those who listen only to Fox.

do you have evidence of that? Everything I read was that they fled and hid.

Feinstien's bill, as did California until amended, defines common target pistols used in the Olympics as "assault weapons". You have not proved your point and have been debunked by people who know what they are talking about.

name a court decision

Not the ones I've seen. But then, I remember when polls showed that most people thought pot should be regulated like heroin too.
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2013/01/mixed-news-on-gun-control-from-gallup-survey.html

what decision?

I have used facts to debunk most of your rants

I never said they did. Who are the "rest of the Nazis"?

It sounds to me that you rely on less than stellar sources, if you were unaware of this decision.

applied only to DC, not exactly that big of a deal. I was quite aware of it. Basically, it upheld DC's registration scheme. How DC defines "assault weapon" is how it was used in the court. How that would apply to anywhere else is a different matter.

I was well aware of it, I just wanted to see if you could cite it.

what is the difference between "assault" and "assault style"? the answer is that the media and gun control advocates began using the latter for some reason, kind of like using "Bushmaster" as if the manufacture matters.

Where Breivik describes someone trying to stop him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17770991

It prompted Breivik to reveal that someone had tried to stop him during the attack on Utoeya island by throwing an object at him which hit him in the face.

that isn't really significant.

Someone used what they had to try to interrupt him firing.

Had he not had an assault style firearm and expanded capacity magazines which permitted him to fire a lot of ammunition rapidly, there were people he was shooting that would have had a better chance of stopping him. Clearly at least one person tried to do that, but had no chance. To throw a shoe and hit him in the face like that, the person had to be reasonably close enough they could have tackled him.

And the fact that you were unaware of this, as you were unaware of the DC decision on assault and assault style weapons shows you aren't as informed as you claim.

So you can stand on your previous statement very much like you could theoretically stand on your head - it doesn't make you correct or very well informed or well reasoned.

Imagine if any of them had been carrying a device meant for personal protection. But then I guess people would have thought them paranoid.... I mean, what situation would they ever find themselves where they couldn't just call the police.

and no, it isn't significant. The fact that you insist on using a propaganda buzz term, one that isn't applied to this rifle, shows that you don't actually grasp the issue that well. BTW, how could it be an "assault style weapon" when you claim those are banned in Norway.

The DC case was about registration and magazine capacity. You have not provided any evidence that it had anything to do with rifles. You also did not show where it was defined by "the courts".

I'm still pretty well informed and more reasoned than you. I still know the difference between "suicide rate" and "gun suicide rate" and that Canada, Germany, and Norway do not ban semi automatic rifle.

Feinstein's bill, still exempted the ranch configuration of the Mini-14. It did not exempt the "tactical" mini 14. Individual states might have more restrictive definitions.

Any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine, can accept a large-capacity magazine. A magazine is just a box with a spring in it.

You do realize that such things can be fabricated? A hunting rifle that the manufacturer sells commercial 5-round magazines... it would be not to big of a thing for anyone to make a 30 round magazine for it. It is only defined by point at which they are joined.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145664-3d-printed-30-round-ar-magazine-brings-us-ever-closer-to-a-fully-3d-printed-gun


heck you can 3-D print an AR lower--- and some guy actually shot one, although it failed after 8 rounds, but that was using the dimensions for metal. I suspect it won't be too long that they'll reinforce the areas that need reinforcing.




And then there is the guy that fabricated an AK-47 out of a shovel.

http://thebrigade.thechive.com/2012/12/06/diy-shovel-to-ak-47-50-photos/

We DO know how the Germans would have reacted. We know because they DID react to a German Jew shooting a Nazi.

Are you completely unaware of what Herschel Grynszpan did? Do you know NOTHING about what precipitated Kristallnacht?

Going full monty is going fully naked, as protesters did in his office not that long ago.

The Jews in 1938 comprised less than 0.5% of the German population, dispersed across the country.

The assumption that without Hitler there would have been no Nazis in control, or no Holocaust is ridiculous. The rampant anti-semitism was too broad and too deep.

Which is why arguing that if the Jews had guns it'd be different.

Or arguing that if a individual had a gun they wouldn't still be a victim of a crime

Or arguing that if guns were illegal Sandy Hook fatalities wouldn't have just been bomb victims


It's pointless. History is history.

We KNOW that the shooting of just one Nazi led to massive civil and governmental backlash; therefore it is clear that any armed resistance would have also provoked this kind of response. It is further supported by other instances of armed response to Nazis by other groups as well as in reaction to Jewish armed resistance in the later days of the war. That is not speculation.

There is no justification that the substitution you are positing for Sandy Hook would have occurred, given how few school bombings have ever taken place, and how few people were killed comparatively, in those few. What makes this an inappropriate comparison is that the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza intended to commit suicide as part of his attack. Without blowing the door to the school, he wouldn't have been able to even get inside to harm anyone. Further, there is clear evidence in the literature on the subject of suicide that there is very little substitution, and only very specific substitutions, in most suicides. There are occasional exceptions, but there is no legitimate extrapolation from so few school bombings compared and contrasted to school shootings, and factoring in the lack of substitutions in suicide methods, that this is a reasonable thing to posit in an argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_bombings_in_the_United_States

There are plausible arguments, and then are just plain bullshit arguments.

So, yes while the Columbine massacre involved bombs for example, they didn't work very well, and if I recall, no one died from them.

It takes less expertise to do what Lanza did than it does to make an effective bomb, and there is the additional factor of potential difficulty in assembling the components. Lanza didn't need to do anything to acquire the weapons he used other than to fire them.

If the gun had not been available, a more effective bomb would be devised.

A fairly cursory search reveals many simple bomb designs. I don't know why Columbine bombs failed- shoddy workmanship by teenage labor (the suck at making my hamburger at Wendy's); whatever. We know the bomb that McVeigh used worked pretty well don't we? We see the effect of suicide bombs in the Middle East. Bombs are not hard. Neither is poisoning people. Crazy people are crazy, they're not stupid.

There are plausible arguments... and there is cherry picking.

I'm not someone who dabbles in alternate realities... so you should realize that you are presently arguing with someone who will entertain them, but not weight them heavily.

If it were true that a gun not being available, a bomb would be used is false. If it were true we would have similar numbers of bombing to shootings.

We don't have those here. The comparison to what is available and used in civil wars - which are the situations you describe - is highly dissimilar to school shootings and school bombings. I would argue that McVeigh was trying to start some kind of civil war/insurrection, but failed. School shootings are not insurrections. Just because they both involve killings doesn't make them similar or comparable.

Further, criminologists have shown through careful analysis that most people who engage in mass shootings are not mentally ill; in fact very few of them are.

The fact that we have had one bombing like McVeigh's almost 20 years ago, and nothing like it since, makes my point and fails your argument. Guns do not equate to bombs.

have links? Citations?

You are a criminologist... correct? I seem to think that, but I can't remember if it's you.

it is interesting subject though.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

they range from articles, to interviews, papers and studies to entire books.

try a search on mass shooters not mentally ill

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mass-murderers-arent-mentally-ill-2012-12

but I think it is safe to assume most lay people, and 99 percent of the people talking about it are not experts in the area, view personality disorder and mentally ill as a distinction without much of a difference or use them interchangeably.
While they are usually not mentally ill in the clinical sense, their personality disorders wouldn't fit my definition of mentally healthy either.

but also addresses the degree to which they are incapacitated by their mental health problem. So it is proportional as well.

and I was PPR'd. When I tried to confirm the authenticity of the uprising (and similar ones), I was hit again. Arguments and inquiries were done in a reasonable, respectful manner. But I can't post my views without censorship. So have at it!

There were only about 400,000 jewish living in germany in jan 1939 so as to be affected by hitler's 'nazi gun laws' (waffengesetzen). And they were free to leave the country, indeed were encouraged to.
Of those 400,000, about half were males; adult fathers or mature sons would not have tried to shoot against nazis so as to put their families at risk from reprisals - they would've gladly given up their guns to, in their forced situation, protect their families, even upon the cruel ruse of a train ride to a better place.

A pro gun website - Guncite - has for many years had this posted:
----- The Myth of Nazi Gun Control
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power... supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany.

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the {earlier} 1928 Law.
Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance.
Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century.. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

There were closer to half that number.

Check out the census records in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum online.

What we DO know is that a Jew shooting a Nazi in November of 1938 was the catalyst for Kristalnacht.

It is a pretty simple extrapolation that any further shooting of Nazis would have resulted in more violence against Jews, not less if one German Jew doing so resulted in such destruction, the killing of nearly 100 Jews, and the rounding up of 30,000 to concentration camps.

It is also clear that the Nazis looked for incidents to use as pretexts for their actions like the Gleiwitz incident less than a year later to justify invading Poland in September 1939.

to compare Hitler and Obama and gun control.

just saying.

pot. kettle.

slant this way.

slant that way.

your link and OP are allowed to stay. will mine be?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
by Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director
and Author Alan Korwin, GunLaws.com
It’s no secret that one of the largest blocs of people pressing for so-called “gun control” is the culturally (aka not-so-religious) American Jewish community. This confounds many observers who would expect that Jews, with such a stunning history of oppression and murder by humanity’s villains, would cling tenaciously to personal firearms and the ability to protect themselves as the Hebrew Scriptures instruct.
In reaction to the Holocaust, American Jews adopted the phrase “Never Again!” If actions mean anything, they don’t believe it. That’s for someone else to do. How do Jews expect to put teeth behind the words “Never Again!” if not with the ability to apply and project personal force when righteous -- and necessary -- for survival?
Why then do so many American Jews hate guns and fear gun ownership so much?
Our research identifies ten reasons why these Jews feel the way they do about self defense in general, firearms specifically and your own right to keep and bear arms.

The adamantly anti-gun-rights Jews are bowing to:
1. A desire for utopian moral purity
2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,”
crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based
behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome
7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion -- Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

~peace.

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Their claims about guns do not comport with the facts of the Holocaust, and many of the members are not even Jewish.

There is no justification for the allegation of hoplophobia either, any more than you can claim the Israelis are hoplophobia because they have strict gun control.

Your answers are silly.

Try again.

whatever.

slant. left.

crack pot is still talking to crack kettle.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Penigma is spot on, JPFO is a radical fringe jewish group which is pro gun & thinks that guns could've prevented the holocaust, or that they would at least prevent another one.
.. Jewish, in a guncontrol support poll about 2000's, were the ethnic group which polled the highest support for gun control efforts, like about 90%, the HIGHEST support.
In fact, tues aft, your very post supports this, as the rabbi is apparently blasting away at his own congregation:

by Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director and Alan Korwin, GunLaws.com
It’s no secret that one of the largest blocs of people pressing for so-called “gun control” is the culturally (aka not-so-religious) American Jewish community.
This confounds many observers who would expect that Jews, with such a stunning history of oppression and murder by humanity’s villains, would cling tenaciously to personal firearms and the ability to protect themselves as the Hebrew Scriptures instruct.
In reaction to the Holocaust, American Jews adopted the phrase “Never Again!”... How do Jews expect to put teeth behind the words “Never Again!” if not with the ability to apply and project personal force when righteous -- and necessary -- for survival?
Why then do so many American Jews hate guns and fear gun ownership so much?
Our research identifies ten reasons why these Jews feel the way they do about self defense in general, firearms specifically and your own right to keep and bear arms.

The adamantly anti-gun-rights Jews are bowing to:
1. A desire for utopian moral purity 2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers 4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,”crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place 5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based
behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome 7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion -- Jews In Name Only (JINOs) 9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

If you've never read much put out by JPFO, you might wanna check out their website, it's radical pro gun. A splinter jewish group imo.

DU is considered a splinter group.

what is your point?

do you silence splinter groups because why?

do we discuss issues or not?

do we ask questions in order that we may find solutions?

do we value contributing members of our society?

Bottom line, both pro-gun groups and pro-Jewish groups - and the group you mentioned is not in fact specifically Jewish despite the name - repudiate them.

They are factually inaccurate, their claims are wrong, and they have none of the credibility (despite some problems) that the ADL has to speak for Jews and the concerns of genocide.

There are NO credible scholars who support them.

This is not pot or kettle; only one side has soot on their reputation, and only one side is cracked here - yours.

As noted ONLY the far fringie right of the pro-gunners, not all pro-gunners, try to float this bogus, unfounded argument.
It is not only liberals who repudiate it, and not only those who favor gun control.

You lose.

someone in America is buying a gun. You lose.

This is a Discussion Board. Not a fucking game.

and -Yes- you were trying to silence the information being put on this board.

That you don't like it is your prerogative and is fine by me. let others make their own decision in the matter.

And the reality is that it is likely these restrictions will pass, which is going to result in some people having spent their money unwisely.

If they want to do something that stupid, while it is still legal, that is their choice. Given the continuing mass shootings with weapons like the Bushmaster AR 15, I think they should expect a continuing slow but steady massive shift in that public opinion. Those people and people like you are clearly on the wrong side of history on this, so it is only a matter of time here in the U.S. before our gun culture and the gun laws substantially change.

You can lose argumentation - or discussion - without ti having anything to do with games. Once again, you lose in making your point by being factually inaccurate.

I have not silenced or tried to silence anyone. You are once again, factually incorrect, and another loss.

penigma: The terms assault weapon and assault style weapons have received court recognition.
.. had Breivik NOT used something that fired that rapidly, he could have been overpowered.

You might've already seen this: ..1,500-page manifesto by Anders Breivik detailed how he used lax U.S. gun laws to help arm himself before killing 76 people in a gun and bomb attack in Norway... Breivik easily acquired high-capacity ammunition magazines from the United States. Such magazines would be prohibited from manufacture or import if her bill, HR 308, were passed and signed into law. The sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines made after 1994 was banned under a federal assault weapons ban that went into effect that year but expired in 2004
.. Breivik's manifesto described his purchase of 10 30-round ammunition magazines from a U.S. supplier who mailed the devices to him..
.. Under a section of his manifesto titled "Rifle/gun accessories purchased," Breivik wrote: "10 x 30 round magazines - .223 cal at 34 USD per mag. Had to buy through a smaller US supplier as most suppliers have export limitations… Total cost: 550 USD."
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201107280012
.. Breivik wrote that he failed to acquire certain weapons illegally in the CzechRepub. "I have now sent an application for a Ruger Mini-14 semi-auto rifle. It is the most 'army like' rifle allowed in Norway, although it is considered a 'poor man's' AR-15. I envy our European American brothers as gun laws in Europe sucks in comparison."

iiibbb: Someone was close enough, and had time to throw a shoe? Imagine if any of them had been carrying a device meant for personal protection.

I believe the shoe was thrown in the courtroom at breivik, missed & hit his lawyer; an 'object' was thrown at breivik at the massacre, as penigma noted. Reread the link & tell me if I'm wrong.

Breivik described on May 11th that he had someone try to stop him, by throwing a shoe which hit him in the face.

On a different occasion during the trial, the relative of one of the victims on the island threw a shoe that missed Breivik entirely, but did strike one of his legal defense team.

That was why I included the BBC coverage link, with a direct quote (translated) from Breivik about the shoe shooting incident, as well as the coverage of when the trial shoe incident occurred.

While someone could make claims about what MAYBE someone might have done with people armed at the youth camp, Norway has been far more successful with maintaining their hunting and shooting sports and gun ownership without the problem we have with carnage and mass shootings and gun crime here in the U.S., and that includes an assault-style weapons ban and a ban on large capacity magazines. It is proof that while such bans will not stop all gun violence, it makes it more difficult and limits it to almost never, instead of every few weeks here, and they have a fraction of one percent gun deaths and injuries.

pneigma: The assumption that without Hitler there would have been no Nazis in control, or no Holocaust is ridiculous. The rampant anti-semitism was too broad and too deep.

I agree with almost everything else you've said in this thread, penigma, but I can't agree to the above.
Without hitler, there would've been no holocaust, at least not of the magnitude of 6 millions, nothing to compare with it, down to tens of thousands perhaps. As the guncite website wrote, jewish had endured pogroms before & another pogrom is what they thought of kristallnacht. German Jewish even heiled hitler.

guncite: Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one {kristallnacht} would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

wiki: Mein Kampf has also been studied as a work on political theory. For example, Hitler announces his hatred of what he believed to be the world's twin evils: Communism and Judaism.
{mein kampf} is significant in our time because a retrospective review of the text reveals the crystallisation of Hitler's goal to completely exterminate the Jewish presence in Europe. While historians diverge on the exact date Hitler decided to exterminate the Jewish people, few place the decision before the mid 1930s. First published in 1925, Mein Kampf shows the ideas that crafted Hitler's historical grievances and ambitions for creating a New Order.

Ludendorf was not anti semitic (with hitler at beer hall putsch); Hindenburg protested a hitler law that wwI jews could not work in german govt., a proper hindenburg endorsement for chancellor would not have been so anti semitic.
Hitler hated germany's social democrats, remnants from the weimar republic which was sometimes referred to as a 'Jew Republic'; two previous anti semitic laws were passed under hitler, one in 1933 & the nurmburg law in 1935, restricting jewish employment & civil rights.
Himmlers, Streichers, & Heydriches might've cropped up as some other names, but without hitler's adoration & supreme power in germany, could'nt have gone as far.
Without hitler, there would have been no comparable holocaust.

There were others who wanted to start killing Jews even earlier in his organization, and others who in the early stages also had charisma and organizational skills. It was not only Hitler who was capable of coming to power at the head of the Nazis.

I would advise you to look at the breakdown of the different forms of anti-semitism in Germany, and how deep it went, and the breadth. What is true is that the other groups might not have been included.

The primary generating force for the camps being turned into death camps was the failure of the early plans to send the Jews to other locations outside of Germany, including possibly Madagascar. Interestingly, they had considered Palestine as one of those destinations, now Israel.

Germany made the change to the 1938 gun control laws AFTER a Jew killed a Nazi, specifically making it clear at the time that he did that killing because of the Nazi policies, and after Kristallnacht. Hitler had made many comments about wanting Jews OUT of Germany, and out of Europe, entirely; that was not only his goal, it was the desire of other European countries that were trying to drive the Jews out, like Poland, from which many Jews DID emigrate prior to 1938.

I think the argument can fairly be made that it was more the combination of external circumstances that permitted Hitler to come to power, and that those circumstances, pressures and influences would have enabled someone else to do so in Hitler's absence. Don't forget that the 'Night of the Long knives' killed Nazi leaders like Strosser, the Nazi founder. Hitler didn't found the Nazis. It had other leaders.

Given how many assassination attempts there were on Hitler over the years, the notion that Jews having guns of course would have magically made the difference in a successful assassination is so highly improbable as to be unworthy of serious consideration.

was the failure of the early plans to send the Jews to other locations outside of Germany, including possibly Madagascar. Interestingly, they had considered Palestine as one of those destinations, now Israel

I think a boatload was rejected at new york harbor, too, or am I thinking of something else. I'm thinking it might've been one of the same boats(ships) you mention above.

think the argument can fairly be made that it was more the combination of external circumstances that permitted Hitler to come to power, and that those circumstances, pressures and influences would have enabled someone else to do so in Hitler's absence. Don't forget that the 'Night of the Long knives' killed Nazi leaders like Strosser, the Nazi founder. Hitler didn't found the Nazis. It had other leaders.

They would have lacked hitlers charisma towards his fellow germans, especially the lower classes.
Gregor Strasser had the prussian/berlin nazi district, hitler the south bavarian, and the stronger the berlin nazis got the more hitler couldn't put up with gregor - and recall that gregors brother otto was cahoots with leftist socialists in germany, I think maybe communist ties as well. And also this was the time when even goebbels was no fan of hitler, & sided with gregor somehow.
For a similar holocaust to have transpired, it would mean gregor strasser, or julius streicher, or himmler or heydrich, to have become so maniacal as well as admired by the nazis & germans. Heydrich was maniacal & streicher too, but it's doubtful they ever could've been so magnetic to the volk, as hitler, in his speeches & mannerisms.
It's doubtful there would've been a world war two if no hitler, since only a madman would've invaded russia when britain was still alive & kicking, & ruled the waves.

True, much anti jewish sentiment amongst polish catholics back then, tho other countries did accept jewish refugees or emigrants, but very difficult to relocate, both mentally & physically.