Articles

Sunday, September 22, 2013

The Central Planning Solution to Evil

We are not a violent society. We are a society sheltered from violence. No one in Rwanda spends  time wondering what kind of man would murder people. They probably live next door to him. If your neighborhood is diverse enough, you might be unfortunate enough to live next door to war criminals all the way from Eastern Europe to Africa.

Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.

It's not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of liberal social control that the killing sprees imply.

The gun issue is about solving individual evil through central planning in a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and tries to live under the illusion that they aren't. A society where everyone is drawing peace signs on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.

That brand of control isn't authority, it's authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.
Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, some of the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the  security guards at armored cars and banks, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control,  and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you're sure to stop all shootings.

So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.

But this isn't really about stopping shootings; it's about the belief that the problem isn't evil, but agency, that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following government orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.

It's the central planning solution to evil.

We'll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We'll never know how many were killed by Obama's regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders.

There was no individual agency, just agencies. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it.

Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it's the lack of central planning for shooting people. It's the individual.

A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders is a major problem. Historically though it's millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.

Moral agency is individual. You can't outsource it to a government and you wouldn't want to.

The bundle of impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual.

Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies or do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders.

Gun control does not control guns, it gives the illusion of controlling people, and when it fails those in authority are able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.

We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, committed to bringing their perfect state into being through the absolute control over people, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play.

People do kill people and the only way to stop that is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything that came before it, but to everyone else, it's just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.

Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 12th Century which was not a nicer place for lack of guns. The same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where a single family can rule over millions and one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants.

Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.

Would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled?

But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It's the party of King George III.  And it doesn't like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.

The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.

Do we want a society run by kings and princes who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The kings can promise us a world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.

It isn't really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it's a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don't run on time and orders don't mean anything. It's afraid of individual power.

Evil finds heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways.

A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.

An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control.

Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.

43 comments:

Edward Cline said...

"Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power." The British government tried to embargo muskets of French and German make from being landed in the American colonies, but to little avail. Most of the muskets used by the American army and militias to battle the British, including "guns" (cannon) were of foreign origin. You are right: It isn't guns that worry our wannabe wardens; it's the individuals whose guns empower them to fight back. It's the armed revolution that Washington D.C. fears, and virtually every state capital fears, because they all know there's a breaking point even in the humblest, most obedient citizen. The American Revolution was never finished. Even as the ink was drying on the new Constitution, ambitious politicians were plotting to acquire power and control. The day will come when we will be called on to finish the job, once and for all. And, as in the Revolutionary period, a goodly portion of the population will side with the kings in their castles or remain indifferent. But our Founders won, nonetheless.

Dennis Latham said...

I believe Liberals are going to see their run come to an end. Things are shifting and people are starting to revolt against constant control and apathy that have destroyed places like Detroit and make them a nightmare on earth. Their programs, besides being totally insane, just do not work. But they never really cared anyway because they didn't have to live with the results. But they will be the first screaming for help when the entire thing collapses.

Bruce Majors said...

What an excellently formulated argument.

mindRider said...

Who shall put up armed resistance when the government decides to disarm it's citizens in one swoop? On youtube one can see frequent misuse of authority against (legally) armed citizens that are not causing any problems and who always comply with the officers often uncouth and unjustified demand for identification. Not one ever talks back firmly to stand his legal ground and not one ever makes a hint of even contemplating individual armed resistance, forget about organized armed resistance. I am not talking about the occasional sect who's legal rights and independence are quickly and violently quelled by overpowering FBI or SWAT teams.

tyrannovar said...

You shine a bright light upon the question of the day, will Western Civilization continue to be founded upon respect for the inalienable rights of the individual, or will the West sink back down into slavery and despotic Asian despotism.

Will the West continue to uphold the ideal of the free independent responsible individual, or will it revert to totalitarian dictatorship where the state and it's great leader is everything and the individual is nothing?

The battle of the free man today against the totalitarian liberal utopian communist wouldbe slave master community organizer is the same battle that the Greek Leonidas fought against the Asian Persian slave master Xerxes at Thermopylae.

Anonymous said...

Another superb essay. Thanks. If only the GOP could find just one or two as capable individuals to articulate the counter arguments to collectivist ideology we would have a better informed electorate and not be in the dire straits we are in today. It is tragic that with all the information at our fingertips today we are collectively the most misinformed and uninformed generation and perhaps doomed to relearn the painful lessons of the past.

Dean Weingarten said...

Here are examples where modern "peasants" stopped mass murders before they could reach critical:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Many will try to claim these examples do not exist, but there is a link to each story.

Anonymous said...

"If only the GOP could find just one or two as capable individuals to articulate the counter arguments to collectivist ideology we would have a better informed electorate and not be in the dire straits we are in today."

Nonsense. Talk is cheap my friend. GOP is all talk and no action. That is at the core of the problem.

James Taber said...

Time for political jujitsu: In order to prevent weapons from flowing north out of Mexico (a failed narco-state) and into the hands of domestic criminals, we have to enact strict border controls.

Anonymous said...

When the same people who denounce guns are no longer the same people who have a narrative that we drive terrorists to kill innocents I will be more impressed.

When the same people who showed such heart-wrenching sympathy for gang members show as much sympathy for the people who are now able to come out of their homes and enjoy life in peace in NYC I will be more impressed.

When the same people who espouse gun control have a sense of happiness when someone successfully uses a gun to defend themselves because they truly believe life is precious and its not just a pose on their behalf I will be more impressed.

Anonymous said...

THE powers that be in america,HAVE SOLD OUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY,they plan to unlease foreign military on everyone,THEY have already moved all their property out of america,THEY know everyone is waking up.they also know TREASON,only has one punishment,THEY don't plan to be here when the sky falls in,AMERICA HAS BEEN LOOTED,and the PTB,have no intention of going to prison for what they have done,AND the police gangs will attack,the military will attack,their ALIEN FRIENDS will attack,and even the RED NECKS,who are good law abiding citizens,will help the PTB destroy america, a very well laided out plan,TO BAD THE prevailing wind in america IS STUPID IS ,AS STUPID DOES, america is ending and IT CAN'T BE STOPPED..............................

mrs adela bradley said...

I find next-to-nothing Pope Francis says to be helpful. Which is unfortunate at such a time as civilization is under attack from all sides. And so, it was heartening to find such a wise and cogent reminder of where and how we recover ourselves and reassert moral agency, individually and collectively, coming from Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in a recent interview:

“Among the requirements of the European community are pseudo-values. The EU looks like a teenager who is testing the limits of morality and needs a Christian education. Europe was built not on same-sex marriages, but on the respect for human dignity, the protection of human rights and freedoms, on honesty in politics and business. On these foundations Europe arose, but it has forgotten about it. These are the values which today the church defends in our society. When it comes to the protection of life from its natural beginning to natural end, then it is the basis for the opposition to euthanasia, abortion, and other acts that violate the dignity of life”
...
He refutes the assertion that if Ukraine adopts the law on gay marriage, then it will join the European community. “I can affirm that it is not so. Sometimes our legislators, so as to not implement other bills, implement ones like this. It is much easier for them in Europe and in Ukraine to vote against the traditional family than against corruption, the unfair judicial system that tolerates selective justice. They focus on minor issues so as to not solve the main ones.”

Anonymous said...

WALTER
For some reason the concept of GUN CONTROL is not fully appreciated, GUN CONTROL is only about who has the GUNS, it has nothing to do with stopping or eliminating guns. What do you call a country of which only the police have guns? A POLICE STATE. Firearms are the great equalizer, with the right firearm, anyone, and I mean anyone, can give a good show of themselves in any aggressive situation.

Anonymous said...

The most intelligent, articulate discussion on gun control written to date that reflects the heartfelt passion of American citizens who hold the 2nd amendment as a sacred right and responsibility.

Anonymous said...

The leftists want to punish the other I find it strange. Over 200 million Americans legally own firearms. Some 8,000 people a year murder people with firearms (most of those do not legally own the guns).

So if you take the extreme view that all of those murders were with legal firearms - that means that some 0.004% of the owners commit murder.

199,992,000 for those actions. Punishing 99.996% for the actions of 0.004%

These same people think that the Torah is barbaric in it's statement of an "Eye for an Eye" have no compunction about 199,9992,000 eyes for one eye. Who is truly barbaric?

Anonymous said...

"Nonsense. Talk is cheap my friend. GOP is all talk and no action. That is at the core of the problem."

Nothing will change as long as we have which way is the wind blowing type of politicians and a media that plays along for ratings.

Keliata

Horace Staccato said...

This is symptomatic of the typical Leftist cycle of tyranny. First the Left creates a problem: They bring in millions of third-world savages, tell them they should define themselves as victims and imply that however they choose to lash out at the perceived "oppressor" is just fine.

The Left also, as part of its core ideology, tells losers, misfits and deviants of ALL races that they too are victims who need to empower themselves. Since the Left has destroyed morality, shame and responsibility it is inevitable that these darling, lively vibrants and misfits will nurse monstrous resentments and that a proportion of those will feel perfectly justified in lashing out violently.

Now that the Left has created this problem, they can do what they really want to do and treat law-abiding Whites as if they are the problem. The Left always looks for the lowest common denominator and finds a way to lower everyone to that level.

If Whites do better than nonWhites in school, then Leftists punish and demonize them; they lower standards so that excellence in school is meaningless. If Whites open private schools that actually produce excellence, then Leftists call those schools racist and make them subject to the Leftist pathology.

Even that chronic Republican obsession with vouchers wrongly assumes that if nonWhites go to White schools that nonWhites will excel. All that will happen with vouchers is that the nonWhites will destroy the excellent White schools.

Our Leftist government is the enemy of its own country. They no longer have any legitimate authority at all. All they have is force. We owe them no allegiance.

Anonymous said...

the guns were in exchange for barry's Little 13 year old girl to go to on of the heaviest infested cartel cities for spring break and not be bothered - we dont have enough secret service to hold off the cartels - strictly payoff
CL

Common 'tater said...

This was great Daniel. I think you summed it up well with your last lines: "Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him." To top that off, history shows that as often as not, the king and cohorts attacked the helpless to remind them who was boss and to keep them that way. Instead of fighting and killing those that attacked the helpless, the king and cohorts joined forces with others from outside the realm just to keep themselves safe.

By the way Horace, you failed to mention that should non-whites (think Cosby and Thomas)seek to excel based upon talent and merit, they are demolished and demonized by the self-appointed "voices" of the "oppressed." I would venture to say that any schools (k-12 or beyond) that serve primarily non-whites and emphasize excellence, virtue, and character are trying to stay under the radar.

RE: Anonymous #7, "gun control" laws, as pointed out by others, are really people control laws. You see, it is far easier to make law abiding, productive citizens obey these draconian laws as we have something to lose if we disobey: house, job, career, savings, possibly our families, and ultimately our freedom. The government had this reinforced when Americans rolled over and played dead when our elected officials could not sign onto the "patriot act" fast enough. All of those that voted for this should have been voted out of office. Most got re-elected. 9-11 was the wake up call and we ignored it. You and I are now treated as the terrorists when they know just exactly who and what to look for. Instead, the great PTB terrorize you and I and give the terrorists a bye (a la the Boston duo). When "special teams" show up at the doors of the average American in armored cars, full body armor, and in groups of 12, what do you think will happen?

Anonymous said...

Arm our citizens to defend ourselves?, the criminals usually kill each other and isn't it ironic that virtually all these mass shootings are either done at the workplace or some school where people are not allowed carry guns to defend themselves.

This defending ourselves excuse doesn't wash with me, once again its North America making the headlines for yet another mass shooting I wonder why that is?.

We'll probably have another one next month as some other guy wants his 15 minutes of fame..

Anonymous said...

Wow! Just wow!! This is the best commentary on gun control/people control I've read since George Orwell. Unarmed people are victims, slaves, targets. There's no other description.

Well done!!!!

MAJMike

Anonymous said...

All of the issues you write about Daniel are issues related to the failure of man to recognize he is a sinner in need of God.

Elaine

Aguila2011 said...

Edward Cline: You say " The American Revolution was never finished. Even as the ink was drying on the new Constitution, ambitious politicians were plotting to acquire power and control. The day will come when we will be called on to finish the job, once and for all." Unfortunately due to human nature, the job is never finished. If the Republic survives (which I am highly skeptical about today), the lesson learned would be that the wolf is ALWAYS at the door and must be guarded against. How liberals/communists have been able to insinuate themselves into every aspect of America and like termites and tear it down from within has been like Satan convincing mankind that he does not exist. Just as everyone is willing to recognize and fight cancer as a threat to life, the liberal/socialist/communist ideology must become equivalent to "cancer" and be fought viciously at every turn. There is no room for allowing it a foothold in any society that has any hope of remaining free. Hence, a free society needs to be willing to identify and perform surgery when clear evidence of the cancer's work is found. The definition of "free" society does not mean "live and let live" not when it comes to cancer.

TheOldMan said...

The Ukranians might have changed Stalin's mind if they had been heavily armed. The Jews in Europe might have had a chance if they had been heavily armed. A perfect bumper sticker would be: Gun Control worked well for the Jews in Europe.

mrs adela bradley said...

In your essay on Biden [whose niece is in the news] 'The Scarecrow of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,' you wrote of Obama, "If he appears to have any warm feelings for a particular group, they seem to be limited to the Muslims of his childhood who helped raise him."

With the recent news of the jihadist attack on historic All Saints Church in Peshawar, Pakistan, that killed 81 people, I thought of what Dr. Bill Warner wrote of Obama in 2008, "He called himself Barry, an Irish name, for many years in America. He changed what he wanted to be called after he went to Pakistan for a three-week stay."

Obama's pathology, in my opinion, stems from his growing up fatherless, the same as the 70,000 gang members of his old senatorial district, Chicago. And I read there were 6 Americans in the Al-Shabaab terror cell that attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

For the record, I don't think more guns would have averted the Holocaust, let alone stopped the Nazis.

But the Warsaw Ghetto did demonstrate that armed groups could tie up large numbers of Nazi forces.

Weapons were a limiting factor, but the biggest limiting factor was organization.

Large numbers of insurgencies going on at the same across Eastern Europe could have brought the Nazi war machine to a halt. There are places where it would have lost control entirely.

The reasons why this didn't happen are more complicated, but they come down to too many divided groups, some of which collaborated, many of which could not get along, lack of preparation, lack of commitment, etc

mrs adela bradley said...

Aye, there was a lot of fatherlessness in Germany Nazism capitalized on too. And it occurs to me ... for all the supposed machismo Islam embodies, and at a time when Pope Francis seems to want to emphasize Christianity as soft and yielding ... in the actual practice of polygamy, children grow up with limited exposure to their fathers.

Max Modine said...

We Irish resisted and frequently rebelled against the English Crown for 1000 years. We were brave and noble and perished in droves largely because we were poorly organized, were infested with informers and because our other overlord, the Catholic Church, frequently undermined us. We stole guns where we could from the Crown and stockpiled them and the French, Spanish and Germans chipped in when it suited their foreign projects. Even our last rebellion, the 1916 Easter Rebellion failed and the Brits executed the signatories to our Declaration of Independence (modeled on the American Declaration).

The 1916 leaders were school teachers and poets and family men. The Brits showed no mercy, primarily because they were afraid of the very things Daniel alludes to, organized insurrection in multiple geographies. They were short of manpower due to the horrible attrition of WW1 trench warfare and they were petrified of an armed population just off their vulnerable west coast. Two of England’s only three deep water ports were located in Derry and Belfast in Ireland. The Germans knew this and unloaded rifles and machine guns from U-Boats to bolster the rebels meagre weapons supplies.

The 1916 leaders knew they were doomed but they also knew that America’s involvement in Europe was desperately needed by the English and there was a huge Irish voting bloc in the US demanding Irish freedom and ultimately it was American pressure that forced Britain to come to the negotiating table where Winston Churchill and Lloyd George faced Michael Collins. The history of Irish Independence and the IRA and British treachery is stuff for another occasion. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Max.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

lots of histories are like that. The organization is in many ways more important than the firepower

There's an important distinction between an armed independent society like the US used to be and a society where people have guns and they're not the same thing

Anonymous said...

Europe combined has a population well over double that of the USA yet have had very little in the way of mass shootings, yes Brevik might have a built himself a substantial body count, ironically he shot his own out of frustration of Islamic immigration why didn't he just shoot up a Mosque f he felt that way instead of killing his own citizens?, but the point is most of Europe don't hold something like the 2nd amendment as a constitutional right as they don't live in fear of some nut job getting his hands on a weapon and going berserk.

Yes there has been mass shootings in Europe but they're extremely rare in comparison to the USA and their very lax gun laws, its no coincidence that the vast majority of mass shootings happen in the States and yet you don't have to be a member of the loony left to suggest huge restrictions on gun control, its a no brainer.

And when the next mass shooting happens we'll have the same old argument "the right to defend ourselves?" when you can't defend yourself in the workplace or the school yard, that argument is simply null and void, America needs to wake up and join the rest of the world.

Stricter gun control means less bodies and that is a fact!!!

J Carlton said...


There is also the fact that Europe has had rather more victims of democide than the US has had. To say nothing of police states, Communist and Socialist governments run amok, lower living standards, and oh, yes the odd major internal civil war running across the continent. Gun control is a no brainer right up to the time when the looneys get control and the thugs with guns get out of control. What bothers me the most here in the US is that the people who most advocate gun control are the same kind of loonies who want control over every aspect of our lives and in the past, have needed camps, barbed wire and gas chambers to inflict their will on the citizenry.

Anonymous said...

As Churchill said in his" History of the English Speaking Peoples", when the longbow man at Agincourt became the martial equal of the mounted knight he also became his political equal.

Mark said...

They have no idea how motivated we are today. They have no idea how much the concept of freedom still means to us. They have yet to realize how much we will do to save our freedom !

Anonymous said...

Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Thomas Jefferson - Declaration of Independance

You have your answer there. People will suffer rather than fight back while suffering is tolerable, or at least while it is sporadic enough that they can assume it won't happen to them.

Anonymous said...

I wonder, how would history have been different if, after WWII, France & Poland had saw fit to allow and even encourage every citizen to own and compete with (then) modern rifles? Something akin to our NRA and High Power matches of the time. Even assuming that not everyone participated, what would have happened had 1 out of every 3 houses in Poland in 1939 had possesed a Mauser, Enfield, Springfield or Garand? That would have been around 2.3 million rifles in trained hands.

I will hazard a guess that Germany would have never attempted an invasion. Germany, at the time of the invasion of poland, only had 1.5 million men available in its military. I doubt even Hitler would have been insane enough to try those odds.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

The German Army was quite effective at rolling over large forces.

The key ingredient would have been an organized opposition and resistance.

Weapons alone aren't enough.

The way that the people in a country like the US would have responded to an invasion is not the same as the outcomes elsewhere

Anonymous said...

Its a lot harder to stop a force already in motion that it is to prevent it from starting. Even disrupting a occupying force takes more effort than discouraging one. A suffieciently armed populance is an incredible discouragement to invasion.

As an example, in the fall of 1939 the Soviets had 3 times the soldiers available as Finland did. They invaded Finland with 240,000 troops. Finland, defended with 130,000 men. The Soviets continued to pour men into the war for its duration. The result? Finnish losses ~26K dead, 43K wounded. Soviet losses vary be sources and research into records, but are setimated at ~64K dead and 207K wounded. Remember, the Soviets had overwhelming advantage in numbers and weapons. The finnish were hampered by logistics and ammunition shortages, but had better cold weather equipment.

From that example, I have to assume that the Nazis, if they found themselves facing a resistance numbering somewhere between equal to and double thier entire military, would have either chosen not to invade Poland* or would have withdrawn after a bloody war that would have stopped there.

*I am using numbers as if 1/4 to 1/3 of Polands households had had then modern military rifles and the training to use them. Poland had a population of 35 million and I'm estimating around 7 million "households" total. Germany had a military of about 1.5 million total men at that time.

Anonymous said...

Did you read the article?

I'll take the bodycount the US has had, all murders (mass or otherwise) over the last 113 years, over the bodycount of just those civilians killed by European governments, NOT related to accidental deaths due to the war, in the 1935 - 1945 period alone. Compare the numbers of dead from the holocaust, or Stalin's purges, or any of a number of goverment sponsered "cleansings".

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Numbers alone are not the issue. In Finland it was the spirit of the people and the innovative tactics that made much of the difference.

Anonymous said...

Bloody hell I've never heard so many spurious arguments to defend your right to bare arms, even the 2nd World War is brought into it, what the heck has that got to do with gun control in this day and age??.

So if the gun advocates had their way they'll send all our kids to school armed with a pistol just in case some lonely teenager wants notoriety and decides to shoot up his school after raiding his fathers gun chest?.

He only gets a few shots off before one of the pupils take him out so the death toll is minimal, so that would be a victory of sorts?.

But what happens when a pupil is chastised by a teacher and out of a fit of rage pulls out his legally owned pistol and blows the teacher away, or two gangs of boys get into a fight in the school yard and instead of the usual fisticuffs they all pull out their legally owned pistols and started spraying bullets every where?, bloody bodies strewn all over the school yard when the shooting stops, the same scenario could happen in the workplace as some disgruntled employee blows his boss away for daring to tick him off for been constantly tardy for work.

Yes all hypothetical I know and nobody is really advocating arming our students going to school or our our postal workers etc going to their place of employment, or are they?

Patrick

. cont......

Anonymous said...

cont...

This right to defend ourselves is a really powder puff defence when most mass shootings happen in places where nobody can defend themselves like schools, workplaces or even movie theaters for heavens sake.

Nobody is asking for a full out gun ban but much stricter control, and if you're a gun advocate and you want to own an arsenal of all types of weapons then they should always be locked away securely at your local gun club and if you fancy using them to get your fix then you can go down to the gun club and fire away at your hearts content to satisfy your obsession and blow off some pent up steam.

Personally if I had my way the only way a person could get his hands on these different types of weapons apart from hunting rifles is to either buy or hire at the local gun club and fire them under strict security and never to leave the grounds of the gun club.

There is an argument that maybe one legally held pistol can be held in any one household if on the very rare occasion an intruder enters your house but kept in safe keeping away from children by a responsible adult.

The thing is the vast majority of the citizens in the USA are never a victim of a serious crime and for many never a victim of any sort of crime as the criminals usually stick to their own turf and kill each other and leave the rest of the populous in the main alone to get on with their own lives..

The bottom line is guns are simply too easily acquired in the USA any old nut job or teen with a grudge can get their hands on a gun be it in their own homes or at the gun store.

Oh I feel like killing myself today but I'd like to get my 15 minutes of fame and go out in a blaze of glory by slaughtering my fellow pupils or workmates just like the boys from Columbine etc etc.

Won't be long now before the next mass slaughter happens and we'll have the same old bullshit defence its not the guns that kill people but the person with the gun?, but if it wasn't so easy to get his/her hands on a gun then it wont be so easy to kill people then would it. Try racking up the body count armed with a few knives?.

Guns kill people so if their is less guns available then less people will die senselessly thats a fact you simply cannot ignore but many of you advocates do just to get another little dig at the liberal left you so despise, to agree with anything the left suggests would be a huge sign of weakness even if they were talking sense.

I don't call myself either left or right, I would have extreme right wing views on Muslim immigration or whats deemed as left wing views on gun control, why do people have to be totally right wing and totally left wing when both sides have views that make perfect sense but no quarter is given we're sure as hell not going to ever agree with some right wing nut job or some left wing loony?.

Patrick.

Dick said...

Excellent article. This argument is very well put and is worthy of mass distribution.
Thanks!

Fabio said...

Anonymous said:
"I don't call myself either left or right, I would have extreme right wing views on Muslim immigration or whats deemed as left wing views on gun control"

Oh, I know what you are. A lot alike Fascism in Italy, that enforced strict gun control (even with the sweetening of the pill: for examples, shotguns for hunting were permitted but under strict surveillance) and also apssed race laws against Jews etc.

Post a Comment