Genocide V's Gun deaths in the last 100 years


PDA






Horsesense
September 23, 2004, 09:50 PM
Back around 2000 I read an article comparing the numbers unarmed citizens killed by their own government to those killed by gun crimes in the last one-hundred years, dose anyone have a copy or dose it ring a bell?

The statistics were very sobering and make a good argument against the assault weapons ban and illustrating that the Second Amendment has everything to do with military type weapons and NOT hunting weapons.

edited Two-hunderd to one-hunderd years

If you enjoyed reading about "Genocide V's Gun deaths in the last 100 years" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kim
September 23, 2004, 10:54 PM
There is a professor( I want to say in Hawaii) that has written on this subject. I think he wrote a whole book. Check out JPFO web site, I think they have an article of his there. Seems like his name starts with an R but I may be wrong.

Solo
September 23, 2004, 11:16 PM
Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something
to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

--------------------------------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 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 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.

--------------------------------------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The historic theme has always revolved around restricting ownership among under and middle classes and reserving the right for the powerful in order to preserve that power for those in control of whatever political system existed at the time.

Gun control has never really been about crime control, although that has always been the stated reason. Rather, it has always been about making sure the "common people" have no way to resist and/or revolt against the ruling force that wanted to preserve their power.
Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

Horsesense
September 23, 2004, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the replays. Solo/Kim those are ringing a bell, I will do some more looking

I found the following excerpt in this link http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html provided in another discussion. It is not the article I had in mind but it is close.

Governments have exterminated or cooperated in the extermination of something like one hundred and seventy million of their own people in the twentieth century.[107] This stark fact makes it reasonable to distrust the state and to fear the terrible crimes it may occasionally commit. However, this is only half an argument for an armed populace. The other half of the argument must meet the question whether, arrayed against the order of battle of a modern military, armed civilians could possibly do any good. What can a man with a gun do against a formation of tanks? How could irregulars, even if armed with modern repeating rifles, confront the rockets and Gatling guns of helicopter gunships? Does anyone seriously believe that had the German Jews only been armed, they might have successfully resisted the troops who crushed the largest armies in Europe between 1939 and 1941?
The claim of futility is of course well-taken if what one has in mind is a showdown on Front Street between a man with a revolver and a crew with a tank. But depicting the problem in this way trivializes an important point and is seriously misleading. An armed citizenry is not an insuperable bar to genocide any more than an armed policeman is an insuperable bar to crime or a strong army an insuperable bar to aggression. The real question is whether a generally armed citizenry is capable of raising the expected cost of genocide (or for that matter ordinary crime) to a potential predator enough to make such disasters less likely to occur than would otherwise be the case, or if the disaster should befall, to make possible the escape of some victims and the resistance of others.
In grappling with these questions, one probably should not consider the Holocaust as the prototype, for it is probably best thought of as an aberrant example in which it might not have made much difference had the victim population been armed. The Holocaust is atypical because Jews were only one half percent or so of an indifferent and sometimes actively hostile continental population. Rounding them up and killing them was relatively easy. Had they been armed, no doubt they would have imposed rankling losses on their tormenters,[108] but without changing the strategic situation appreciably or, in the end, saving themselves.[109]
Nevertheless, virtually all the other recent examples point quite in the other direction. For example, had the Cambodian civilians of the 1970s been as well-armed as American civilians are, it is far from obvious that the Khmer Rouges, whose army numbered less than one hundred thousand troops, could have murdered as many of them as they did. Indeed, the Khmer Rouges behaved as though they agreed with this assessment. The Cambodian people were already largely disarmed because guns had been prohibited from the time of the French occupation. Even so, the Khmer Rouge leadership wanted to make sure and took the extraordinary precaution of a nationwide house-to-house, hut-to-hut search to confirm that the country was indeed defenseless. Once it was sure, the army clubbed and bayoneted to death two or more million people, which amounted to almost a third of the country's population.
The Khmer Rouge search parties did not advertise their objectives beforehand (supposing that they even knew them). They placed a good communitarian face on their actions, which might almost have been conned from Garry Wills. One witness reported they would
knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. "We are here now to protect you," the soldiers said, "and no one has a need for a weapon anymore." People who said that they kept no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves . . . . [This all] took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed they dropped their pretense of friendliness.[110]
In contrast consider the story that some Armenians lived to tell about the Turkish genocide of the early 1900s. Having systematically disarmed Armenians through a series of decrees over a twenty-five year period, the Turkish army and police were able to round up and kill over one million Armenians by a combination of overt murders and forced marches over hundreds of miles without food or water. However, thousands of Armenians from Aleppo province (modern Syria), who had secreted guns, took to the hills. Having defeated the first Turkish army units sent against them, they retreated from stronger forces in good order, until they reached the sea where the British, who were at war with the Turks, evacuated them.[111]
In some cases, civilians have to contend not with well-trained armed forces, but a uniformed rabble. In Uganda in the mid-1970s, for example, five hundred thousand victims were slain by Idi Amin's army which numbered only about twenty-five thousand and secret police force (the "State Research Bureau"--a nice Orwellian touch) only three thousand strong. The army, as it turned out, was hardly worthy of the name; undisciplined and ill-equipped, it collapsed not long after Amin declared war on Tanzania in late 1978.[112] It is not hard to believe that an armed population could have held its own against such forces.
Or consider Indonesia, where a half-million suspected Communists were slaughtered in the mid-1960s by fellow civilians armed, among other ways, with firearms lent to them for the express purpose by the Indonesian


government.[113] The entire undertaking would have been complicated beyond calculation, and perhaps would have been if not abandoned at least carried out on a more modest scale, had the population been more heavily armed.
The cases of Uganda and Indonesia also show that the alternative to genocide may be civil war if a genocide target is sufficiently well-armed to fight back. One might well consider such an outcome equally as unappealing as genocide (although probably not if one were a member of the victim group). But civil war is not necessarily the result. The first Turkish atrocities against the Armenians occurred in the 1890s and largely involved civilian proxies specially armed by the government to kill Armenians, who were slaughtered by the tens of thousands. Where Armenians were armed they fought back, and in fact were quite successful not only against civilian irregulars but against regular army troops as well. Perhaps out of fear that civil war or prolonged disorders might provoke foreign intervention, the army recalled the arms from its proxies and ended the attacks (though the government also confiscated the Armenians' arms, facilitating the second genocide twenty years later).[114] Something similar seems to have occurred in the American South during the early 1960s. Southern police officers were in many cases content to see blacks and civil rights workers brutalized, and in a few cases even killed, so long as the violence was one-sided. However, when blacks displayed arms for self-defense, the police intervened to halt KKK outrages lest they lead to gun battles in the streets and other disorders.[115]

Kim
September 23, 2004, 11:47 PM
The guys name is R. J Rummel (one l I think is correct spelling). I might have read his article in the 2nd amendment library category on the Guncite web page. Maybe you can google it if you can't find it. I think he covered the 20 th century.

Horsesense
September 24, 2004, 12:30 AM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

This is it! Thanks Kim! The only thing I'm not seeing is the tally on gun crime deaths during the same time (which may have been something I put together in my mind)

Horsesense
September 24, 2004, 01:24 AM
I have searched in vane for estimated non-war gun deaths world wide in the 20th century but I did find an estimate on a anti web page for America http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html

"National statistics on gun homicides have been collected since 1933. Between 1933 and 1997, 591,528 Americans were murdered with firearms. Even the number of gun homicides since 1933, taken by it self, exceeds the total number of Americans killed on the battlefield during this century. In 1933, the first year for which national statistics are available, 7,863 Americans were murdered with guns. While we will never know the exact number of people murdered with firearms in this century, the total would likely approach 1.5 million. "

Only 1.5 million (using their numbers) for the most incorrigible country in the world, that would mean that you would have to increase the number one-hundred fold, for the rest of the world, to even get into the ballpark with the one-hundred and seventy million killed world wide, who were unarmed and murdered by their own government.

I would love to find some estimates from the UN

WEPS
September 24, 2004, 02:16 AM
i bet alcohol and tobaco kill 10 times as many people, maybe they should ban that.

WEPS
September 24, 2004, 02:20 AM
i wonder how many law abiding folks go postal and kill? probley not to many. so that means the ones who are doing the killing are criminals and gang bangers. so taking away our guns would stop anything, right? people would still kill eachother and we would be forced to protect ourselfs with bats and knives until they took that away too.

jefnvk
September 24, 2004, 07:06 PM
i bet alcohol and tobaco kill 10 times as many people, maybe they should ban that

We tried that. In fact, I'm sure that you could find people convinced that it was the cause for the rise in firearm deaths.

sendec
September 24, 2004, 07:37 PM
Uh, yeah, it is the criminals doing the killing, and until they become criminals they are law-abiding.

What does these little exercises prove? Mainly that bad governments pass bad laws and kill a lot of people. This isnt a revelation. It is a little simplistic. presence of guns doesnt really mean much as a dterrent against anything, look at the mideast, the Balkans and Africa in general. While some of these areas may have hypereestrcitive gun control, most do not. They are awash in blood and guns. Genocide is a far more complex issue than can be resolved by "guns".

You cannot claim that guns prevent violence, or else you validate the basis for the claim that they cause it. Both claims are equally spurious. There may be a correlation, but that doesnt equal causality.

morganm01
September 24, 2004, 09:47 PM
Here is the site. Governments kill more of their own people than other governments have killed in times of war.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM

horge
September 24, 2004, 10:19 PM
Nonsense and rubbish for me, I'm afraid.

IMHO it cuts both ways, as many of these 'governments' came to power by the barrel of the gun: guns that were then NOT in the possession of the prior government.

Besides, it's ultimately unproductive to treat things this way: trying to defend KBA as 'a lesser hurt upon humanity' than X, Y, or Z. What kind of argument is that?

:scrutiny:

Far better to say that since the dawn of time, people have been doing nasty things to each other, disarmed or not. From the dawn of time as well, people have been doing good things for one another, armed or not.

If criminal/negligent use of weapons is to be treated, it is hardly an indictment of the tools used, for the perpetrators would make a weapon of their very teeth if disarmed --it is an indictment of the society and culture that breeds such people.

Now, given that there ARE such perpetrators out there, armed or not, I require the means to defend myself and my loved ones from them. Period.

Horsesense
September 25, 2004, 02:27 AM
"Besides, it's ultimately unproductive to treat things this way: trying to defend KBA as 'a lesser hurt upon humanity' than X, Y, or Z. What kind of argument is that?"


I see your point, my friend, but the argument IS the answer to the argument that says "guns kill x amount of people a year and therefore we need to ban guns" if logic were all it took to convince the gun grabbers to back off, we wouldn't need to answer their flawed logic with facts.

The ideological high road leads to the goolgols: if we would keep our rights, and reclaim those already lost, we must attack the enemy strong hold in the hearts and minds of the sheeple.

Have you ever heard a United Nations PSA (public service announcement) on the radio? They are free, all you have to do is provide the radio station with the tape and the station plays them as part of their license agreement. Now what is keeping the NRA from sending out their own PSA? I'll tell you why; they are on the high road while the battle rages in the streets.

Climbing off my soap box

horge
September 25, 2004, 08:09 PM
Nay, nay, stay on it, good fellow ;)

This non-American will continue:

If the argument of 'anti's' is that X number of people are killed by firearms, then all it takes is to check their statistics --if they are correct or even close, then there is no point contesting documented fact, even if said fact is cited by idiots. It is what the idiots deduce from cited fact that can be challenged. THEY ARE TROTTING OUT THE WRONG SOLUTION, and we're all running out of time.

They cite mortality stats involving firearms, the evil done with guns.
I admit that the natural, direct rebuttal; pointing out how many lives are saved by firearms, whether in the hands of private citizens or citizens employed in public service like LEO's, can be an frustrating exercise. It is obviously easier to document and quantify hurt rather than the good done. Your CIA had the same problem: only its failures ever get public exposure.

The RKBA movement nevertheless has several OTHER, harder-stinging rebukes to antis' arguments --such as asking if they would have other Amendments so violated.

I think the hindrance is that both sides are in denial:
The anti's pretend that the 2A doesn't exist, or if it did, was a mistake or written to refer to 'state troopers', ad nauseam. Their real problem is that they've lost sight of the issue: fighting violent armed crime. They've gotten locked into an 'all guns must go' mode, and are going about it piecemeal, via legislation, and have been pretty successful.

Maybe gun owners (some of them at least) have reverted to a black-and-white mode of defense: --anyone even suggesting a pragmatic control on firearm retail (to discourage sale to criminals), must be with the gun-grabbers. Some gun owners may have forgotten that there is real crime being committed with firearms. Black market notwithstanding, they cannot turn a blind eye to brick-and-mortar stores potentially selling firearms to the unfit.

There's the rub, no?
The premise that some are unfit. All the b*tching and moaning on this board about 'BG's' seems out of sync with the 'all men are equal' 'with equal rights' foundation of most vocal 2A defenses posted.

There IS a problem whether it is being inflated by the other side or no.
The anti's are however proposing the wrong solution, while large parts of the of the gun owning public seem confused on what the 2A is there for: the 2A IS an irreplaceable part of the solution.

Gun owners can only do so much directly to address the problem of violent crime. But, getting the maximum number of good people (and yes, there are good and bad people, no?) armed AND trained is obvious. Proper training is often touted, but how may gun owners really train for safety? A favorite poster child of the anti's is the kid who finds his dad's loaded weapon and kills someone. Too much training seems focused on Mozambiques --heck, why mislead with the term 'safety drill'? REAL gun safety seems relegated to ink and paper, just like your Second Amendment.

Again, there is a real problem out there: armed, violent crime.
Maybe alongside pointing to the 2A as a sacrosanct guarantee of your firearm-owning rights, which smacks somewhat of selfish concern...

some might go back to the noble POV that delivered the 2A in the first place.
Firearms ownership and competence was deemed by many a DUTY before it became a right. Not just one's self was concerned, but communities had to be armed and trained. Legitimate firearm owners today are supposed to be friendly with police, since both entities have consciously committed personal risk, and long training, towards guarding the former's safety.

I suspect there was a time when the 2A really meant something to everyone.
It guaranteed that you could own guns FOR A PURPOSE, not just that you could own guns.
I fear too many focus on the 'shall not be infringed', while disregarding serious study of the preceding words.
It protects your KBA for a purpose: that you be ready defend your State.

Now, look at the same crime stats the anti's keep trotting out.
Every State in your Union is under presently attack by an armed rabble, united in a lust for assault, murder, rape, robbery and theft.

Your fellow Americans are being targetted.
Americans are being hurt, maimed, or worse on their own soil!
They are victims because they aren't armed and aren't properly trained.
The 2A is about defense, and yet, how many law-abiding Americans are unprepared to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their State?

Maybe, gun owners, the ones who understand that the 2A is not a silly, outdated document; who understand that violent crime is now such that it constitutes an attack upon their communities, their State, and the American way of life, ought to be working to create the solution: the strong defense that the 2A tried to preserve, but that spoiled, lazy America has turned its back on.

Maybe you've been caught napping, reliant upon a government only too happy to offer its withered teat to a weak, suckling, infantile citizenry. It's maybe time to face the duty laid upon you by the 2A.

Otherwise you may get what too many keep voting for:
A government over the people, in front of the people and behind the people.


Use it or lose it.





:(

fallingblock
September 25, 2004, 10:28 PM
"It is what the idiots deduce from cited fact that can be challenged. THEY ARE TROTTING OUT THE WRONG SOLUTION, and we're all running out of time."
************************************************************

Australia's P.M. John Howard is one of those idiots.:(
We are indeed running out of time.


************************************************************
"Some gun owners may have forgotten that there is real crime being committed with firearms. Black market notwithstanding, they cannot turn a blind eye to brick-and-mortar stores potentially selling firearms to the unfit.

There's the rub, no?
The premise that some are unfit. All the b*tching and moaning on this board about 'BG's' seems out of sync with the 'all men are equal' 'with equal rights' foundation of most vocal 2A defenses posted."
************************************************************

All men are 'created equal' is actually the concept enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

They have equal rights under the law and before their creator.

The 'bad guys" choose to commit crimes, to assault their fellow citizens, and therefore forfeit certain rights, such as their right to travel freely among the rest of us, for a term decided by a jury of their peers.

They are indeed unfit, but as a result of their own choice to offend.


************************************************************
"Legitimate firearm owners today are supposed to be friendly with police, since entities both have consciously committed both personal safety, and long training, towards guarding the former's safety."
************************************************************


That concept depends too much on the ideal of a government which uses police for enforcing just laws, and not to harass and disarm its citizenry.


************************************************************
"I suspect there was a time when the 2A really meant something to everyone.
It guaranteed that you owned guns FOR A PURPOSE, not just that you owned guns.
I fear too many focus on the 'shall not be infringed', while disregarding serious study of the preceding words."
************************************************************


But that purpose is to allow the citizen to defend against the unjust encroachment of government as well as foreign enemies. The citizen is to be the arbitrator of "purpose" - not the govenrment.


************************************************************
"It protects your KBA for a purpose: that you be ready defend your State."
************************************************************


Or to overthow the state and restore a just government, as the need may arise.


************************************************************
"the strong defense that the 2A tried to preserve, but that spoiled, lazy America has turned its back on.
....
Use it or lose it."
************************************************************


Indeed! Could it be accomplished, or are there already too many of us too "spoiled & lazy"?

Is the Second Amendment 'obsolete'....
through lack of resolve in the majority of the citizens of the U.S.?:scrutiny:

horge
September 26, 2004, 12:40 AM
my aologies

Agree with me not, good fellow.
In the heat of passion, I've clearly overspoken.

It was most presumptuous to hold forth on the culture, law and state of a faraway sovereign land, and I apologize for the offense.

I would have deleted my prior post, but it has already been quoted in parts. Perhaps it's better anyway, to leave it as a mark of my sad arrogance. I plead only frustration in the situation, that the very country that sends the bravest men and women in arms abroad, could have its citizens stripped of their arms at home.


horge

Tom Bri
September 26, 2004, 01:13 AM
R. J. Rummel, 'Death By Government'. This is one of the most shocking, hard hitting books you will ever read. I strongly suggest reading.

fallingblock
September 26, 2004, 02:40 AM
"It was most presumptuous to hold forth on the culture, law and state of a faraway sovereign land, and I apologize for the offense."
************************************************************

Don't apologise....you have a far better grasp of the situation than many, if not most, U.S. Citizens do!:)

I was trying to agree with you while adding some additional insights from my own thinking on the issues.

My question:
"Is the Second Amendment 'obsolete'....
through lack of resolve in the majority of the citizens of the U.S.?"
************************************************************

Is merely a reflection of my own concern over the seeming indifference, even hostility, with which so many Americans regard the Second Amendment today.

It was in no way meant as an attack on your well-reasoned post.

Please continue, horge, we are sharing some good thoughts here.:)

JHill
September 27, 2004, 11:29 PM
EVERYONE!! Must see The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership's newest video--'Innocents Betrayed'.

It documents the murder of over 200 million citizens of various countries across the globe.

You can find it here... (http://prisonplanet.com/)

morganm01
September 27, 2004, 11:59 PM
I couldn't find it...looks like a lefty-conspiracy-GWB-and-the-jews-bombed the-WTC-and-framed-UBL my-hero.com website

Horsesense
April 6, 2008, 10:56 PM
Bump

WayneConrad
April 7, 2008, 12:04 AM
Please see Why guns are not pricipally about crime (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=350025). Summary: Murders worldwide, 1900-1999, 8.5M?; demicide, 83M-169M (White).

If you enjoyed reading about "Genocide V's Gun deaths in the last 100 years" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!