Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
*blinks* in what way do anti-gun opinions equate to pro-genocide opinions?
|
Easy: the three reliably seen preconditions for a genocide are 1) hatred, however based; 2) the power of the State, either to give muscle to the haters or shield and sanction their activities; 3) gun-control laws, as these are the most efficient mechanism for disarming a population.
If you haven't disarmed a population, you can't practicably wipe them out, particularly in an internal pogrom. They'll shoot back, and you run out of Einsatzkommandos in short order. Maybe they run you out of the national capitol next.
Antigun opinions favor and encourage gun control laws. No gun control, no tyranny. No tyranny, genocide at worst drops to "mighty darn seldom." Nobody's going to call minimizing genocide a bad thing, least of all me.
Gun control laws are all about the disarming -- "you can't have this." Forbid or delegitimize armed self-defense and you eliminate any ability to rescue yourself from crimes by the State, genocides being perhaps the chiefest of criminal acts on a national scale. The record shows such laws are highly efficient at disarming people, and such laws are found in the legal corpuses of Nazi Germany, Ottoman Turkey, Communist China, Guatemala, Cambodia, and others. Damning, really.
Of the deadly three preconditions, hatred is... mighty hard to rid ourselves of. For better or for worse, the State isn't likely to wither away either -- and even worse from an antigenocide point of view, you can't look to another State to rescue you from the lethal intentions of your own. Not, at any rate, in time. It's happened, but how long did it take, and was there any coherent campaign to rescue or was it just incidental to conquering territory? You know the answer to that one. The state isn't a bulwark against genocides, particularly not when it is a necessary part of what makes one go.
What's needed instead is a vaccine against genocide. Gun bans are highly efficient at rendering people helpless before weaponry -- but laws banning guns are also the most vulnerable of the preconditions: they are subject to being wiped out at the stroke of the repealing legislative pen.
Consider too that genocides happen in secret, and that their victims do not see them coming -- they are ambushed. If they saw them coming, they'd take off, wouldn't they?
So it's really not that tough a logical leap to see "antigun opinion --> antigun legislation --> helplessness before violence --> crime by persons, without trouble, and crime by states, also without trouble: genocide."
Genocide being a nasty thing, you want to give it as much trouble as you possibly can, and only one way has been found that always works. The people must have fangs, claws, and the will to use them. Anything less -- well, it
might work. Maybe. For a time.
But remember hatred doesn't go away -- it isn't momentary irritation. Remember how much hatred is completely irrational: are its possessors really anything other than like rabid dogs? Irrational haters are singularly unresponsive to the force of a good example, and notably rendered untroublesome after responding to the force of a well directed bullet. Given a choice between submitting to murder and using a good bullet, well, being of sound mind, I'll use the bullet and Godspeed to it.
Gun control laws can lie in wait for decades before a genocide occurs, as was the case for Cambodia. Theoretically, they could do their dirty work generations after being passed.
Thus saith the
JPFO. The case they make for their argument is strong enough I don't think anyone's mileage varies.