Yemeni vs Egyptian protests

Yemen: High gun ownership rate, here is a video of the protest there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_vicXVciXo

notice lack of violence and notice the government is not attacking them.

Egypt: Lower rate of gun ownership

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xWiBCIxjIk

lots of violence, I remember some people saying that if the people owned a lot of guns there'd be blood running in the streets.

Looks like it is the opposite, less guns equals more violence which seems to be the norm.

Results in Egypt:
After all the violence and the death of over 100 people the president of egypt promises he will not seek reelection. sounds good.
http://www.france24.com/en/20110201-egypt-president-mubarak-election-mandate-protests-quit

How about yemen. Same thing, president now vows to not seek reelection. and no deaths and very little violence. The heavily armed people of yemen did the same thing as the people in egypt with little noise and almost no violence.
http://www.businessinsider.com/yemens-president-will-not-seek-reelection-2011-2

the anti-gun agenda, it's spin and BS? lame.

you are the one who is using the deaths of Egyptian citizens to try and score points for your side.

now I show the truth and all the sudden it is immoral to talk about the protests in this debate. As soon as the data goes against the anti-gun cause, it becomes "immoral" to use it in the debate.

Maybe you are just a being a bit too sensitive about your gawd-given right to carry around a killing machine.

Epic Fail

I take it you object equally as strenuously, when the gun control movement and their supporters do likewise, in say...tuscon, before the blood has even dried?

anti-gun activists feel they can use any tragedy or any event to promote their agenda

in order to try to silence you, as soon as the data goes against them, as it is predicted to do every time, they try to make it look like you are "immoral" for using the event or tragedy to make your point.

This tactic is used over and over again and is predictable. When I post up some real data that makes you think, the topic of the discussion is how "immoral" it is of me to post it, but when they use events like the protest to promote their cause, it becomes a debate. and they lose that debate also.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Looks like it is the opposite, less guns equals more violence which seems to be the norm."

Totally preposterous.

The argument I made (which has never been refuted, btw) is that the Egyptian people did not achieve their political ends by attacking the military. They achieved successes through unity and NON VIOLENT MEANS.

This proves that people interested in toppling an unpopular government have much greater chance at success when they do not shoot at the military and police. This is the classic gun rights argument, that we need a heavily armed populace so we can take on the US military if the government becomes oppressive. Its bunk, the Egyptians, Tunisians and Yemenis prove that.

You linked to a video of protests in Yemen. Where are the guns? Isn't this actually more evidence that real political change comes from NON-VIOLENT MEANS?

Right now the situation in Egypt is very fluid. Each time a shot is fired by the protesters it harms their perception in the international community. Mubarak knows that. Mubarak-supported thugs in Egypt are the ones trying to promote violence because they want to paint the protesters as rioters and criminals. It seems to be working, I can see the media portrayal of the protesters becoming move negative every time I turn on the tube.

Your guns don't protect my rights.

Violence. With Very little violence in Yemen with the same results it shows It's better to have a well armed population.

Using firearms to overthrow a dictator should be last resort only. You were measuring the value of civilian ownership of firearms and your point was that it is better for the population to be unarmed, I just showed you that is not correct. The position of pro gun people is that the possession of guns by civilians helps to avoid violent confrontation between governments and the people.

I'm not arguing about the benefit of NON-violence, I simply showed you that the NON-violence occurred in Yemen while violence occured in Egypt.

"With Very little violence in Yemen with the same results it shows It's better to have a well armed population."

So lets get this straight. As more guns have been introduced into the Egypt situation, more violence has erupted...so you refuted your own premise right there. More guns actually equals more violence. More guns have been deliberately introduced into the situation because more violence is what the oppressors want.

I asked you a question. I asked: where were the guns in the Yemeni protest? Your silence speaks volumes.

"The position of pro gun people is that the possession of guns by civilians helps to avoid violent confrontation between governments and the people."

No, it isn't. The position of the vast majority pro-gun people who pretend this BS has merit is that the population must be armed so they can violently resist the armed forces and the police.

Most of the guns in Egypt are in the hands of the pro-Mubarak thugs. They are trying to create violence, trying to provoke acts of terrorism.

Guns are tools of state oppression, not of freedom. Truth and unity are the most effective weapons for free people.

"Most of the guns in Egypt are in the hands of the pro-Mubarak thugs."

You over there taking a census? Must have a sat link for your laptop huh? Dangerous work, I suggest you take some friends with you. But that's ok, you'll be safe without guns.

Control works to disarm the average person and allow for pro government people or agencies and criminals to control and possess a disproportionately large amount of the guns in the country.

Gun control in Egypt = Mubarak deciding who gets to own guns. well duhhhhhhhhhhhhh the pro Mubarak people are the ones with the guns.

But I cannot see one stating it as a fact. At most, I think it is a 'reasonable' guess.

Without knowing the ratio of mubarak supporters to opposition, I can't even begin to guess whether more guns are in 'bad' hands, or 'good' hands.

my question goes unanswered.

Say, why is that?

Probably many places.

Under clothing, ready but unused.
At home, unneeded at this time.

After all, pro-regime loyalists haven't ridden into yemeni crowds with whips and molotov cocktails, and attacked them. Probably because they will get shot. But of course, that is my inference, I am not over there taking any census either.

you might learn something.

CNN, BBC, and Al-Jazeera.

What are you watching?

It is alleged that the pro-democracy crowd was fired upon from three vantage points with automatic weapons. 5 dead, about 90 wounded. No commentary on whether there was return fire.

Though he had enough fear of and respect for his people to give them what they wanted without any significant violence.

You have no idea how many guns have been concealed among protesters in Egypt at any given time and your assumption that more guns equals more violence is unfounded. Just because someone is carrying a gun does not mean they will shoot someone.


"Most of the guns in Egypt are in the hands of the pro-Mubarak thugs. They are trying to create violence, trying to provoke acts of terrorism. "

I often make the point that tough gun control results in a disproportionate amount of guns being in the hands of criminals and otherwise bad people who do not follow the law. In Mexico the tough gun laws have resulted in disarming law abiding citizens while every gang member will still have a gun, therefore tipping the balance of power from the good law abiding people over to the criminals. In Mexico the drug gangs are in control of half the country already. Same goes for Egypt, obviously tough gun control has resulted in putting the guns in the hands of pro-Mubarak people while oppressing the right of the common citizen from owning a gun. This is how it was in NAZI Germany also.

Nobody who keeps guns does so to go toe to toe with the military.
You mistake 'government' for 'military'.


As we see in Egypt, the military is not always 'on' the government's side.
An infinitely strong military does not preclude a violent revolution against a dictator.