Gun control's best friend

[Drizzt]

Gun control's best friend

By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 1, 2005


The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns.

Darfur is a Texas-size region of Sudan. The Sudanese government and its militia proxies have killed roughly 70,000 civilians, raped and mutilated untold numbers of others and caused about 3 million refugees to live in camps.

Sudan could teach Serbia a thing or two about ethnic cleansing.

This carnage has been going on since 2003. The Sudan People's Liberation Army, a small band of revolutionaries from Darfur, were the only excuse the government needed to wage war on unarmed citizens in the region, who also happen to be fellow Muslims.

As I was reading story after story about the horrific treatment of the innocents by government-backed forces, I always wondered why there was no mention of the victims fighting back.

"Some do defend themselves," said Bill Garvelink, acting assistant administrator for the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The United States has given about $600 million since 2003.

"But Sudan has helicopters and AK-47s. People in the camps have machetes," Garvelink said. International treaties covering humanitarian aid prohibit giving any side arms to defend oneself; otherwise no aid workers would be allowed to bring in supplies to a troubled region.

But Sudan is not allowing aid workers much access anyway so the refugees are caught in the middle, he said.

Amnesty International prefers to end the genocide by moral persuasion instead of self-defense.

"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone escalation of the flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation.

"Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be."

But we do know what they are now.

Self-defense could exacerbate the situation, Katyoka said. "Fighting fire with fire is not a solution to the genocide. It is a dangerous proposition to arm the minorities to fight back."

Better they should be slaughtered.

Katyoka hopes the United Nations can do something -- someday -- to stop the killing. She also hopes Sudan's leaders are charged with crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court. But at this rate, will there be any eyewitnesses left to testify?

Even Dr. Ali B. Ali-Dinar, founder and director of the African Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania -- who was born and reared in Darfur -- does not believe in arming the victims.

"That could create a vicious cycle of violence," Ali-Dinar said. "The cycle now is mainly orchestrated by the government. Give guns to the traumatized and it will definitely get out of hand. There is no limit then, for them to stop."

He, too, hopes the international community comes to the rescue -- someday.

(Ali-Dinar will be speaking 2 to 4 p.m. on Sunday at the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer, 5700 Forbes Avenue in Squirrel Hill. There is no charge for admission. It is sponsored by the Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition.)

Darfur is one more reminder that gun control is genocide's best friend.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_319251.html

"That could create a vicious cycle of violence," Ali-Dinar said.

....uh, as opposed to what they have now?

 

[El Tejon]

We have captured piles of firearms from kindly Uncle Saddam. Air drop them into the Sudan.

I'd rather be in a sword fight with a sword than unarmed. Any who is against arming those being slaughtered should be air dropped into the Sudan unarmed to talk to the Arabs.

 

[dasmi]

"Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be."

"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone escalation of the flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation.

Self-defense could exacerbate the situation, Katyoka said. "Fighting fire with fire is not a solution to the genocide. It is a dangerous proposition to arm the minorities to fight back."

I'm speechless. These people are evil. Purely evil.

 

[armoredman]

Unbelieveable. It is morally right to allow innocent helpless people to be slaughtered like animals, than to allow any shred of human dignity, and let them fight back. These cretinous vomit bags of infected pus bubble residue should be removed from any contact with any human beings, other than each other, on a deserted island with no food, tools, or clothes. Enjoy.

 

[jefnvk]

It is a dangerous proposition to arm the minorities

Doesn't that always seem to be the root of gun control?

I like the idea of parachuting AI members in unarmed to calm the situtation. No US protection, either.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be.

All that's required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

dasmi

I'm speechless. These people are evil. Purely evil.

That's the only conclusion that makes any sense.

 

[FRIENDLY]

arms for Darfur

The Jews showedwhat can happen when they got a few(Very few) weapons in Warsaw.It really scared the Germans. Armed and deadly NON victims.It disturbs murderers if you can say we will die together- your choice.

 

[Jeff]

I'm speechless.

Ditto.

 

[beerslurpy]

Wow, that is pretty cold blooded. How can you be against the genocide and also be against the victims defending themselves? Thats like being against the toilet overflowing but thoroughly rejecting the evil of plungers because it complicates the outcome of a toilet stoppage.

Complexity is better than a foregone conclusion of "evil triumphs again."

 

[shermacman]

Want to hear another one from the Lunatic Liberals?

"I am opposed to the war, but I support the troops."

 

[lwsimon]

How difficult would it be to buy a couple thousand AKs and airdrop them out of a private plane? I wonder if that would violate any international or other law that would get us burned back in the US?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I wonder if that would violate any international or other law that would get us burned back in the US?

I'm sure it would be horrendously illegal on any number of counts—assuming, of course, anybody ever found out.

 

[c_yeager]

The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns.

Sudan could teach Serbia a thing or two about ethnic cleansing.

These two quotes appearing in the same article are confusing to say the least. If anything Serbia stands as a good example that guns arent some universal solution to genocide, there were AMPLE firearms in Serbia, and they didnt solve anything by themselves. You need people with the will and ability to use them before anything gets fixed. Guns don't cause freedom anymore thant hey cause crime.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

c_yeager

If anything Serbia stands as a good example that guns arent some universal solution to genocide,

Not really trying to argue the point here but, I have seen no actual evidence of genocide in Serbia. Just alot of talk of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".
Maybe having arms prevented it, or maybe it didn't happen?
If you could provide some sites it would be appreciated.

 

[c_yeager]

Not really trying to argue the point here but, I have seen no actual evidence of genocide in Serbia. Just alot of talk of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".

There were images of mass graves and camps all over the news during our involvement in the conflict. Rather than posting individual articles for you, let me suggest putting "Serbia" and "Genocide" into a search engine, you can then read about a quarter million articles for yourself, some of which deny the presence of an organized genocidal effort and others which confirm it, then you can decide what you think. For what its worth my information comes from personal acquaintance, some of which were among groups that were "cleansed" and at least one of which that participated in "cleansing".

For what its worth, it would seem that the people who did the killing and the people who were being killed varied quite a bit depending on where you were. Essentially it was a situation in which a lot of people hated a lot of other people and when the violence really broke out whoever happened to be on top tried to eliminate as many of their least favorite group as possible. It was most likely a case of isolated small scale acts of ethnicly/socially targeted genocide rather than a large nationwide effort (although there is some evidence that this happened as well).

Really its an absurdly complicated issue, and the telling of it varies even if you talk to people who were there, when you add in politically and idiologicaly motivated news items it just gets all the more convoluted. Suffice it to say that they have found mass graves full of people of a common ethnicity who probably didnt want to be dead, and someone put them there.

 

[roo_ster]

It is a dangerous proposition to arm the minorities to fight back.

Dayum.

It looks like Amnesty International needs to open a KKK auxiliary. They seem to share some of the same beliefs.

 

[Jeff]

c yeager,

So would the implementation of arms make the Sudanese plight any better, or would it make it worse?

I'm sure most people understand that the rights and means to self defense are not a panacea for the ills of aggression and man's inhumanity to man; but I'm not sure how having access to firearms and the desire for self defense would make genocide any worse.

I mean, we're talking about genocide here-- the worst it gets in the human crimes department.

 

[c_yeager]

but I'm not sure how having access to firearms and the desire for self defense would make genocide any worse.

I invite you to point out where I ever said any such thing. TO save time explaining myself I am instead just going to quite my perfectly clear statement of position made in my previous post.

guns arent some universal solution to genocide

I then further clarified this statement and proposed a more realistic view with this

You need people with the will and ability to use them before anything gets fixed. Guns don't cause freedom anymore thant hey cause crime.

Im really not sure where the confusion is coming from here. The point isnt that guns won't help, its that simply throwing guns at the Sudanese is not a realistic solution to the problem. Feel free to argue that point if you like, but im not really going to defend statements that I not only didnt make, but dont agree with myself.

 

[Jeff]

c yeager said:

I invite you to point out where I ever said any such thing. TO save time explaining myself I am instead just going to quite my perfectly clear statement of position made in my previous post.

Excuse me, c. I'm not stating that you actually said that. I'm merely stating that having access to firearms would not make the problem of genocide worse than what it is, as in the topic at hand-- Sudan.

You are making statements that conclude that having access to firearms is not necessarily effective. I'm merely stating that having access to firearms when the problem is genocide is not going to make the problem worse.

The example in this thread is genocide. It is not something else.

Therefore, how do you connect your opinion on firearms access in general to firearms access in response to a problem as desperate as genocide?

c yeager said:

The point isnt that guns won't help, its that simply throwing guns at the Sudanese is not a realistic solution to the problem.

How do you know that doing nothing (i.e. not allowing firearms access) will provide resistance to the problem of genocide?

What is your logic or reasoning?

 

[c_yeager]

How do you know that doing nothing (i.e. not allowing firearms access) will provide resistance to the problem of genocide?

Once again I invite you to point out where I stated that doing nothing was a good idea. If you want my opinion on the best way to prevent genocide I will provide it for you: An armed populace with a standing citizen militia that is not controlled by any government body. This is what we have in this country, and it has worked so far. The fact is that the best protection against genocide is to prevent it from happening in the first place, and that is best accomplished by having a government that is beholden to it's people, not just by law, but by force. Once the situation has already begun you start to run out of options, if a government is so out of control that it can engage in this activity, then the only solution is an organized military one, historically this organized military solution comes from a country other than the one in which the genocide is occuring.

In other words; if the people of Sudan were capable of resisting this genocide they never would have wound up with a governmnet like this in the first place. Clearly the only way this is going to stop is by another nation stepping in a replacing their government with something more representative of the people.

 

[Jeff]

Once again I invite you to point out where I stated that doing nothing was a good idea.

Again, I'm not stating you actually said that. But you imply it.

If the refusal of arms for the Sudanese isn't a measure that will lead to a solution of the problem, then why would anyone advocate for not supplying them these arms, when arms have historically been used for self defense?

i.e. If arms are not a part of the problem, then they should be a part of the solution.

then the only solution is an organized military one, historically this organized military solution comes from a country other than the one in which the genocide is occuring.

But that says nothing about the fact that no country that has historically had firearms rights has allowed themselves into these desperate predicaments. You use a "what-if" type of scenario, such as the one below:

...if the people of Sudan were capable of resisting this genocide they never would have wound up with a governmnet like this in the first place.

But that says nothing about possible solutions to their plight, only that
societies that do not have access to arms are subject to this type of oppression and suffering at the hands of others.

Some Native American tribes benefited from firearms gifts from the white man than did others, and those tribes used those weapons to successfully conquer their rival tribes.

I will agree with you on one thing: if you aren't willing to use force to defend yourself, then guns are useless. But has anyone determined that this is the case in the Sudan...or anywhere?

 

[c_yeager]

But that says nothing about the fact that no country that has historically had firearms rights has allowed themselves into these desperate predicaments.

as previously stated:

If you want my opinion on the best way to prevent genocide I will provide it for you: An armed populace with a standing citizen militia that is not controlled by any government body.

But that says nothing about possible solutions to their plight

Solution =

the only solution is an organized military one

 

[MajMikeW]

Ethnic Cleansing by Serbians

Sgt Bob et al,

I was there both before the Dayton Peace Accord (Dec '95) and after, and had the unpleasant duty to assist in the recovery of hundreds of bodies from half a dozen mass graves. In many of these the only sign of death was a small hole in the back of the skull, but apparently they saved bullets on the infants and small children and simply buried them alive.

MajMike

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone escalation of the flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation.

And how are the freaking victims supposed to retaliate if they're dead?