Despite the fact that "Genocide Expert" Matthew White says about it after debunking it:CONSIDER THIS… This is just part of the known tally …
* In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns.But, there is one question it raises--if gun control leads to genocide, why hasn't the United Kingdom seen any massive genocides? After all, the United Kingdom has had some form of gun control for the past two hundred or so years, with actual gun registration and licensing occurring in 1919.
You highlight the selective knowledge of history - that not only do heavily armed resistance groups get thoroughly crushed, but that they do so while having absolutely NO significant effect on those they oppose.
ReplyDeleteWhat DOES often work far more effectively is opposition that does NOT involve using firearms.
I would suggest for starters becoming famiiliar with the concept of sabotage, from the french wooden clog, or sabot (not the gun term).
from wikipedia:
Sabotage, a form of political warfare, varies from highly technical coup de main acts that require detailed planning and the use of specially trained operatives, to innumerable simple acts which the ordinary individual citizen-saboteur can perform. Simple sabotage is carried out in such a way as to involve a minimum danger of injury, detection, and reprisal. There are two main methods of sabotage; physical destruction and the "human element." While physical destruction as a method is self-explanatory, its targets are nuanced, reflecting objects to which the saboteur has normal and inconspicuous access in everyday life. The "human element" is based on universal opportunities to make faulty decisions, to adopt a non-cooperative attitude, and to induce others to follow suit. [1]
Sabotage training for the Allies of World War II consisted of teaching would-be saboteurs the key components to working machinery on which to focus their destruction. "Saboteurs learned hundreds of small tricks to cause the Germans big trouble. The cables in a telephone junction box... could be jumbled to make the wrong connections when numbers were dialed. A few ounces of plastique, properly placed, could bring down a bridge, cave in a mine shaft, or collapse the roof of a railroad tunnel." [2]
In a workplace setting, sabotage is the conscious withdrawal of efficiency generally directed at causing some change in workplace conditions. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. As a rule, saboteurs try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions. For example, whereas an environmental pressure group might be happy to be identified with an act of sabotage, it would not want the individual identities of the perpetrators known.
This demonstrates not only a really poor and selective knowledge of history, including effective opposition, it
the end of the above sentence was omitted.
DeleteThat list is so cherry picked and misleading it is a disaster that only the ignorant could believe. It is pure propaganda. It is simplistic, it is misleading, it relies on a believer who is uneducated and incompetent at critical thinking.
And this is worse:
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
What a massive load of manure. Pure emotional appeal to those who do not think, the very group denigrated by Jefferson in his oft so very selectively quoted to mislead comments about rebellion.
It is more accurate to ask the gun nuts why they approve of the slaughter and injury of five times the number of children as are harmed in all of the other civilized, and developed countries combined. Why do the gun nuts approve of the deaths of 30,000 Americans a year, and the injuring of a few hundred thousand more, when clearly those deaths and injuries are largely preventable.
You might also inquire how it is that the old white flabby and crabby are going to mount that effective opposition to their fantasy oppressors while they are obese and out of shape. In point of fact, Mayor Bloomberg's portion limitation on sugary drinks better prepares America to resist oppression, internal or external, than does any legislation from the NRA.
First off corrolation/causation. Fortunately for the UK they have not had a government with that agenda, control is enough for them.
DeleteAnd Dog gone that is really beautiful that you have the audacity to claim that unarmed resistence to oppression is so much more effective. Even in the article it says the people who were disarmed did fight back but its an awful lot harder after the regime has criminalized civilian gun ownership.
Your example of France in World War II is also horribly misleading. Yes it was a nuissance for the Germans, sure they had their fun but the story doesn't end with the Germans getting frustrated and leaving; it ends with men bearing guns killing the Germans occupying France.
A great deal of the countries in existence today came about from armed revolution. American colonists owned firearms and used them to push out the British. For a more contemporary example you can look to Vietnam. They were completely outgunned and outmanned. But they still had guns and about about 200,000 American soldiers (wounded and killed) can testify that it was much more effective in fighting off the occupying force and South Vietnamese regime than hunger strikes and protests.
And while it does help to be in good shape, a fit man and an obese man have about the same odds if they are unarmed. The soda ban is just a spit in the face from government to liberty as it claims that people can not be trusted to live their own lives as they see fit. Back on topic now.
The right to bear arms has up to this point prevented the necessity to use arms because the government knows it can only go so far. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" Thomas Jefforson.
Also the new commenting system is a little tricky, you should return to the old. I'm not an OFWG, in fact I am still youthful and it's still just a hassle to figure this out and make an actual account just to post a reply. I call suppression.
TF, that is not what your side keeps saying. You guys keep saying gun band lead to tyranny. Now you're back peddling and saying, but, in the UK they don't have that agenda.
DeleteSo you're addressing my argument by addressing somebody else's. First the ban is a form of tyranny in itself but even without your recognition that bearing arms is a right you must recognize that banning it does make population control easier and is the first step whereever it has happened. If you could find an example of a well armed populace being subject to genocide I would be interested
DeleteShow me a case of any developed and civilized country, post Hitler, that waged genocide on their own citizens.
DeleteYou can't.
And you can't show me any case in a civilized country where massive violence occurred other than in a civil war. (Bosnia for example, where it was a war crime.)
I would argue to you that Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Morrocco or any of the other Arab Spring nations are NOT relying on an armed populace, and that their arms did not control their populations.
Your premise if flawed; force of arms against tyranny is no longer the method of opposition in the latter half of the 20th century or the 21st century.
You are out of date and out of touch. Laci has already noted that there have been numerous instances of armed rebellion that were crushed. You are lunatic to believe that your silly little guns mean anything in opposing a government in the era of tanks, stealth bombers, and drones.
You hold a fantasy view of your firearm, which is why it is a fetish object in how you relate to it. You ascribe to it a power it does not have.
"While physical destruction as a method is self-explanatory, its targets are nuanced, reflecting objects to which the saboteur has normal and inconspicuous access in everyday life. The "human element" is based on universal opportunities to make faulty decisions, to adopt a non-cooperative attitude, and to induce others to follow suit."
DeleteHey look here! Isn't this what the Ukrainian peasants were doing when they were destroying their own crops rather than have the Soviets come and take said crops....
wait for it
....at the point of a gun?
Also, guns are inanimate objects, it's use depends on the person holding that gun. I think it's more accurate to say that the 56 million people mentioned in the OP lost their lives at the hands of people in government.
Of course, government = coercion or force. Any attempt by the government at gun control is a move towards creating a monopoly on the use of force for itself. Monopolies are still bad in this part of the internet, right?
"It is more accurate to ask the gun nuts why they approve of the slaughter and injury of five times the number of children as are harmed in all of the other civilized, and developed countries combined. Why do the gun nuts approve of the deaths of 30,000 Americans a year, and the injuring of a few hundred thousand more, when clearly those deaths and injuries are largely preventable."
DeleteYour reasoning is flawed. Does your agreement with government action mean that you also approve approve of the 56 million people that have been killed as a result of those policies? Of course not, or I hope not. Because clearly those deaths could easily have been prevented also.
We can add LOTS of countries to the list of gun-control-friendly countries which, despite highly regulating guns, are nonetheless free and democratic societies with very low numbers of incidents of gun violence. Canada, for instance.
ReplyDeleteCanada - isn't that the country that was repealing one of their gun registration policies?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour example of France in World War II is also horribly misleading. Yes it was a nuissance for the Germans, sure they had their fun but the story doesn't end with the Germans getting frustrated and leaving; it ends with men bearing guns killing the Germans occupying France."
ReplyDeleteNot the maquis, not the other underground groups. They were highly effective in frustrating the nazis in many ways. Their actions were not close to being the proximate cause of the nazis decamping from france. The main reason that that the nazis were dislodged in France and other countries in europe was the assault by coordinated groups of soldiers, military troops with megatons of conventional bombs, artillery and armor and close air support--not by arms bearing civilians. There was also the niggling matter of something like 150 divisions of soviet troops bearing down on Berlin from the late summer of 1944 until May of 1945.
You're an idiot.
The point was that sabotage was not the reason as Dog Gone suggested but was weapons. I'm not sure what you know in the ways of military history but air strikes don't win wars. They certainly are helpful but at the end of the day you can't occupy a region with an airplane, you need boots on the ground. Besides that still leaves many other examples of people throwing out occupational forces and regimes despite being outgunned. Are you going to for a second suggest that North Vietnam had a better Air Force than America? Or military at all? How about most of Central and South America and Africa?
Delete"Are you going to for a second suggest that North Vietnam had a better Air Force than America? Or military at all? How about most of Central and South America and Africa?'
ReplyDeleteAre you so stupid that you think the Vietnam war was fought between the U.S. military and the equivalent of the U.S. gunzloonz nation? It's tempting to think that you're just a moron instead of a lying sack of shit, but I won't rule out your being both.
The Vietcong and NVA accounted for thousands of U.S. warplanes and helicopters being shot down with AA,AAA,SAM's and heavy machine guns used as AA. The NVA and the Vietcong were outgunned and had virtually no close air support. Somehow, they managed to inflict thousands of casualties.
And precisely wtf does any of that have to do with central and south america and africa? I'm unfamiliar with our having fought wars in those countries. We did send our military into cuba, panama, the philipines, Nicaragua, Honduras, dominica and haiti and several other places where they did what was required by United Fruit or whatever other U.S. interest had their money invested. We were not chased out of any of those places, afaia, the military went in and left when they were ordered to do so.
You gunzloonz would accomplish one thing in an armed insurrrection; you'd bring down hellfire on the communities you live in.