Old Baldy said:
Hammy: Russia, where some of my ancestors come from, stated alot of the atorcities of Stalin would have been prevented if he had not banned firearms. They could have defended themselves during the "starving" years and outright purges. (Look at what the Afghani's did for Godsakes.)
Stalin era Russia is not a developed country in the slightest. Communism was a popular movement in Russia, precisely
because it wasn't developed hence there was no seizing of power that was against public opinion. Could some atrocities be minimized and/or prevented if people had weapons? Very likely. Would it have changed anything significant, or saved many more lives? Most definitly not.
Reminder of question: Name one
developed country with a tyrant in recent history, that would have been
preventable or fixable if the people were armed. Or name one developed country now, that is armed, and if unarmed, would likely be vulnerable to tyrannical rule.
Many Jews would have survived the massacres had Hitler not disarmed them years before. This comes from Jews I have known who survived the massacres and concentration camps.
Hitler was elected by the Germans. Any attack on the state is an attack on the electorate. There was no tyrant coming in to seize power. I am quite surprised though, that you would have even suggested if Jews had firearms there would have been no holocaust. In fact, I'm dumbfounded. You could also have said that 20 thousand Jews escorted by about 100 soldiers is a scenario that would have worked in the Jews favour, 20 thousand versus 100 armed Nazis? A riot would sort that out. But is it realistic? No. Is it realistic to attack the armed state elected by the people and survive very long? Do you think the German public would be more or less vulnerable to propaganda declaring Jews as traitors, if the Jews started shooting their soldiers? Use your imagination. The Nazi army held off Britain, France, AND Russia, do you think it would even remotely matter if a pistol-wielding Jew made a threat? It would be comedy material in fact for Nazi newspapers.
Reminder of question: Name one developed country with a tyrant in recent history, that would have been
preventable or fixable if the people were armed. Or name one developed country now, that is armed, and if unarmed, would likely be vulnerable to tyrannical rule.
China - many citizens would have survived the "purges" of Mao if they had been allowed to own firearms.
See Russia.
But as is always the case, dictators disarm the population before conducting their atrocities.
One example please.
My remaining ancestors, (i.e., the Armenians), were disarmed by the Turks and many thousands were massacred as a result.
The list goes on, and on, and on ....... and on.
Except everything you seem to be mentioning WENT on and on and on in a past that involved undeveloped countries, not GOES on and on and on. To me it is revealing that pre-WW2, pre-human rights, pre-geneva convention eras are what you regard as relevant risks to compare with America at present.
As to the murder rate in America, you have a point. We are a more violent society in our inner cities. No doubt about that. Poverty in those areas is terrible and does lead to more violent crime.
I'm sorry, but poverty is in every country. Your murder rate is not.
You do have a reasonable, logical point on that one Hammy. It's a price I feel we have to pay for real freedom though. But that is the most glaring "flaw" in my position. I will admit that. So, you're batting .500 IMHO and that would put you in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not too bad an average.
Real freedom? You have no idea. Real freedom would be that every person has access to weapons equal in number, type, intensity, to the State. Currently, your population is no match for the military power of any nation, let alone the most powerful.
Powersam: If we could rid the world of evil people, rid the world of any chance of a dictator coming to power, rid the world of any objects that could be used for killing, then, I would go for no firearms ownership. This would have to apply to individuals, police and military. That's as far as I go Powersam.
The exact answer to your question......hmmm.......no, because the honest individual should never be prevented from having access to firearms for self-defense
Should honest individuals be prevented from access to anything? If criteria for access is honesty, then dishonesty is the the criteria for banning. In that case, your top priority should be George W Bush, he's currently causing a few problems because of his access to weapons, although he claims it's for self-defense. :dunno: But as I recall, he was voted in twice. Your firearms policy seems to be a bit broke.
Once again, this is my belief system. I could be wrong. However, you and Hammy could be wrong also. I'm disappointed to see that neither one of you have admitted that you could be wrong. (Well, you have in so many words Powersam, but Hammy is too steadfast and doesn't see any flaws in his argument. That is unreasonable IMHO and is the type of attitude that leads to fanaticism, the exact type of thing I feel safer to guard against with the 2nd Amendment.)
My belief is simply that a society saturated with firearms has a higher murder rate than a society that isn't. My evidence is all european countries, and all 1st world countries.
Your evidence is not exactly relevant today, in my opinion.
I am not fanatical. I would go with the policy that saves more lives, if you can really demonstrate this by something other than the fear of an unseen tyrannical spectre, I'll be fanatical about your belief system within no time. Let's say you get rid of your weapons entirely. A tyrant comes, wipes out....let's say, a million folks in 5 years of rule until he is ousted, naturally. You'd lose a million in 5 years. You're already losing 30 thousand a year because of guns. Within 33 years, you'll have achieved what a very rigorous, motivated tyrant has achieved in 5. This means your country is simply tyrannical, but 5 times less motivated. You thus believe this is acceptable because firing little bullets at a tyrants army will somehow make him warm more to the population. I mean, if the USA had a fairly frequent tyranny issue that just seemed to bypass congress and the senate and also tended to mass murder your population at a rate greater than current gun deaths, then I'd SERIOUSLY consider your belief system as a method to curb such tendencies. The tyranny issue is infrequent, actually, non-existant, but gun deaths are. In fact, during this post, it has frequented several times. Some families at time of writing have been told news that has just broken them, some child has his/her future taken away either during this post, or 30 minutes after it. I wonder how much they consider the bogie-man tyrant and that their tragedy is a price to pay to prevent the future-possible-mystical-maniac from doing it to everyone else.
Remember, all dictators and fanatics feel they are doing the right thing. Problem is they are human and oftentimes their extremism jades and clouds their judgment. Plus, because they are human, they could be just plain wrong.
I mean, let's look at Hammy's "high horse" attitude he has relative to how he views people in America.
He feels we are a "genetic" mutation of sorts when it comes to our violent tendencies and he wonders where we got those tendencies from.
Hey.....here's a crazy idea! Maybe it's because you have hundreds of millions of guns everywhere! :woot:
1 - Roughly 50 million people died, I repeat, 50 million died (i.e., combined) in WWI and WWII in Europe (including Russia). This occurred less than one hundred years ago. How's that for a murder rate Hammy?
I find it curious that you're comparing war deaths caused by military action, to your daily murder rate. Is your country in a civil war? :dunno:
2 - The sun never set on the British empire up to roughly 60 years ago. Hmmm... wonder if the British ever had to kill someone to get their way? How's that for a murder rate Hammy?
It isn't. A murder rate is typically a number of deaths per 100,000 population. I don't see that anywhere in your statement or entire post, so far.
3 - The Spanish and Dutch were the main slave traders bringing slaves into the Americas. How's that for a murder rate Hammy?
Very low. I'd imagine the trade wouldn't be very lucrative if their commodity was murdered.
4 - The French, Spanish, Dutch and Germans had extensive colonial holdings over the centuries. Some are currently held or have their societies still basically imitating their conquerers. Hmmm.... wonder if any of those countries ever had to kill people to have their way? How's that for a murder rate Hammy?
Your logic: We need guns because Spain colonized some place 2 centuries ago.
No murder rate mentioned, no developed countries mentioned, nothing in recent history. Basically, nothing you have said so far answers any of my questions, or any part of them.
5 - The English ruled America with an iron hand until the Revolution. The straw that broke the camel's back arguably occurred when firearms were (1) confiscated in Boston and (2) their military set-up "shop" in various private households, in those areas identified as "hot-beds" of political revolt, in order to smash any "questionable" political activities. I wonder how many people died in America from England's tyrannical rule Hammy?
Ok ok ok you win. I agree. If only the native Americans had enough guns, they could have kept their lands and self-determination. What's that I hear? The right to arms applies only to the certain people? My, you're almost sounding like one of those tyrants. :crazy:
Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, I presumed perhaps incorrectly that you thought self-determination and firearms do not apply to everyone.
6 - Firearms were invented (i.e., or perfected) in European countries. (I think Italy was on the forefront.) Ok, a little off-base but still a fact.
Invented in China infact with fire lancets that fired balls of flame and shrapnel, improved by the Islamic world with the cannon and perfected gunpowder recipe, then improved in post-Renaissance Europe again with cannons, rifles and muskets etc..
Humanity invented everything. I'm not actually distinguishing Americans from humanity, I'm distinguishing your gun laws with other developed countries.
7 - Russia has killed so many of its own people that I have lost count. How's that for a murder rate Hammy.
"So many of it's own people" is not a murder rate. It is not recent, infact, the country USSR does not exist, and it definitly wasn't a developed country during early communism when most of the killing took place. I havn't looked into Russias murder in any detail in the present time, nor gun laws etc.
So where do we get our "philosophies" in this area Hammy? We get them from "you" Hammy.
You're afraid of Britain again? Come on. We're your poodle now.
You would probably say, "well, we're beyond that now". Bull cookies, people and societies don't change that fast
Yes they don't normally do. You'd need some pretty impactive incentives to change quickly. Maybe incentives like WW1 and WW2.
You add up all the above killings in (1) your own area of the world and (2) by people coming from your area of the world and it dwarfs the killings on American soil.
I'm almost certain that it does. I still don't however see how this answers any part of any of my questions.
No, honest law abiding citizens need to be armed to guard against such atrocities brought upon societies by people from your area of the world Hammy.
My area of the world invented human rights, the Geneva convention, democracy in it's modern form. It even invented your second amendment which you inherited from english law. Remember, that was the tyrannical, imperialist England's law, which you adopted. We've thus made it harder for any tyrant ANYWHERE in the world to do what you fear will happen. We invented modern guns, we learned what they do, and then we banned them. That doesn't show us as a danger, it shows above all, we learned from mistakes, and took steps prevent them from happening again. Since you copy our "philosophy", perhaps you're a bit late with the most up-to-date version?
And if it can happen as often as it has from your area of the world Hammy, it could happen here also. No, people don't just change overnight Hammy IMHO.
You're giving the impression people are peaceful, law abiding then turn into murdering tyrannical maniacs. If anything, we see examples of that most often in the USA than in Europe. :freak:
unk: *high five" 
