Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Mmm. You'd probably have to have been born into, and raised in, a republic to come to that place easily. But not liking genocide is easier.
.
|
I take your point about the Warsaw Ghetto. And the definition of genocide as it applies to the situation in North America during the 18th and 19th centuries.
But there have been genocides where the population was not disarmed. And there are many places where the population is not armed in which there are no risks of genocide. As you say: certain things need to be in place.
Read this: On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians); Harcourt, Bernard E.
It's interesting. It takes a different perspective.
To suggest that someone who supports gun control in a liberal democracy 'likes genocide' is ridiculous. It is a matter of risk assessment.
We have had genocide in Britain: during the 17th Century the British engaged in ethnic cleansing in Ireland (not strictly genocide, but certainly a crime against humanity). Prior to that there was what amounted to a genocide in the late 11th century (the Harrying of the North).
The components necessary for genocide do not exist in modern Britain. To be armed as a defence against a highly theoretical and I would argue vanishingly small risk of a total cultural and political volte face does not make sense when the risks that armament would bring are very real and measurable. It would make as much sense as everybody wearing radiation suits 24/7 to guard against a potential nuclear powerplant accident.