Debate For All

OK..lets discuss these alternative means that are more effective than using force. And why are arms intrinsically dangerous to the people themselves? We have discussed the people of Switzerland, their access to arms and their low gun crime rate. In their case the guns are not to blame.

 

Had Granny been packing heat the heartless thugs would have thought twice about terrorizing her

 

Yeah, and in her last days she could be proud of having shot a man trying to steal some money from her. Turning an innocent old granny into a potential murderer.

No regime has ever lasted for very long without the support of its population, even if they used brutal force to surpress that same population. This is simply because no government can get anything done without having loyal taxpaying citizens who will follow their "orders" (obey the laws, be conscripted, follow government procedures). From this derive the many ways in which an unarmed population, if willing to absorb some of the violence used by the oppressive government, can overthrow that government. For those fighting for the despot using violence against an unarmed citizenry will not be morally justified, thus causing mutiny and disloyalty among those upholding the regime; meanwhile none of the citizenry have blood on their hands when they need to set up a new government.

The independence movement of Gandhi is the most obvious and probably the best example of a nonviolent movement that succeded in throwing out a foreign ruler. Not a gun was fired by the population if it was within Gandhi's control.

 

Had granny been armed then the thugs would have arms and more likeky to use it.

 

Roel wrote:

Perhaps she would have had more days to live if not for these thugs. The post was somewhat tongue in cheek however the response surprises me not in the least. Where I came from defending your home from criminals does not make one a murderer. Are these burglars acting out of impulses beyond their control, as mere products of their environment and should no blame be attached to them for the crimes of capitalist society that forced them into this lifestyle?

How do you explain 70 + years of the USSR? Or Communist China?

Fortunately for Gandhi his tactics were used against a foe that IMO is/was basically decent and humane. Had such pacifist resistance tactics been used against the Nazi's or Soviets what do you think would have happened.

 

Strength through weakness and surrender! Shades of Neville Chamberlain :smok:

 

The Spanish Civil War is an interesting example of armies and civilians ducking it out, but was not as simple as it sounds.
Rebel army against the people it's an oversimplification. There were many political factions in both sides, the armed forces were fractured among both sides, and the civilian population too.
But they were other times, and people didn't have the media that we have today, and we are far better informed (media spin or not) than people then.



If the granny had a gun, those guys wouldn't had known beforehand, so they wouldn't have been prepared for it. Tactical surpise is your friend.

 

I think if we consider the last 200 years, despotic regimes in the western world always took power with the agreement of the largest part of the population.
While in other parts of the world ethnic/social/religious minorities often despotically ruled over a larger part of the population which were unhappy about this situation(Stalin's Russia, Saddam's Iraq, maybe Mao's China....), in the western world, undemocratic regimes were largely backed by the population.
This was the case for Mussolini, Hitler, probably Franco, Castro and Napoléon(altough Napoléon was not really despotic when compared to the rest of Europe).Others could be listed.
Maybe there are exceptions to this, but generally I think it's true.
In such a case an armed citizenry is of course of no use, as the largest part of this armed people would support the power in place).

As for examples of armed citizens living under tyranny, I already cited Afghanistan where guns are usually to be found in every house.
In most of the country, men don't leave their house unarmed.

Another one is Iraq where already under Saddam's regime, people in the rural areas where heavily armed, some villages even waging war against each other.

Other examples could be Palestine and Albania.
Now, I know that neither of these countries can socially be compared to the US, but nevertheless it indicates that armed citizenry does not necessarily exclude tyranny.

Also there are examples of people overthrowing despotic rulers without being armed.
Examples of these could be(ammong many others): France 1789, Russia 1917(altough here tyranny was replaced by Tyranny), India 1947, Eastern Europe 1989....
This generally shows that if the great majority of the people are really unhappy with the regime in place, they will end it.(If they can agree by what system they will replace it).

 

Not at all.

 

If you live in a country where most or a lot of people do you assume they will have one.

 

Then you exclude those not willing or not capable enough to prey on them, but conversely, those who have the will or means, will be better prepared.

 

If you give people too few controls over weapons, you could end up in a country where the murders are proportionately high.

 

That might be true if guns had a malevolent will of their own. They do not.
People not disposed to murder and rob to not suddenly turn to violent crime because guns are available. That was my point in the discussion involving different cultures in the US. Middle class America has guns but do not commit violent crimes. Urban ghetto America has guns and have high violent crime rate. Switzerland has guns...no violent gun crime.
Begin to see a pattern here? Are guns the culprit?

 

:lol:
You're at home in the terminology...
The burglars are obviously scum, at least judging what we know of them, and acted on their own initiative because they knew their victim was an old helpless lady. However, were they armed? In a previously described example, using violence beyond proportion to the threat causes one to be judged for whatever was inflicted.

I must admit that in this case, while wholly out of character, gun ownership would have aided the lady (providing that a gun would actually give her the needed comfort!). However, these cases are quite exceptional and in the average case of burglary public gun ownership will make matters worse by causing gunfights to break out within someone's house. Whatever the outcome it will be out of proportion to the crime. And beyond this I see no reason for a civilian to own a gun anyway.

Cruel repression and indocrtination to levels unknown in the West. Asian methods of subjection and indoctrination are simply hugely different from Western methods and lead to the infamous Russian was tactics as well as the Chinese great works regarding labour as expendable.

Another thing is the fact that during the Russian civil war (1917-1922) a great share of the population rose up in arms against the regime they didn't want. However all these small independent movements were crushed by the Red Army, organized by Trotsky; arms didn't help the civilians against the army.

 

I don't understand your point, it seems contradictory to me.
Are you saying Stalinist Russia and Mao's China had broad popular support amongst the people?

Hitler and possibly Mussolini we have already eliminated as not being applicable. As to Castro, who can say? His populace was disarmed by dictate of the regime. Judging from the number of poltical exiles that have fled to the US from Cuba it could be argued that had the populace used those arms rather than turning them in Cuba might be a prosperous and free nation today rather than the disgrace that it is.

The Taliban regime had some support in Afghanistan but who's to say what would have happened had the situation gone on? How long did the regime last? Not long enough to make firm historical conclusions surely.

Iraq is a poor example for many reasons..the sectarian split between ruling Sunni and the majority Shite..as well as the oppressed ethnic minority Kurds all make it too complicated to sort out and draw any useful conclusions about in regard to this issue IMO.

Russia 1917? Not armed conflict?
India? Passive resistance can only work if the despotic regime is not thoroughly brutal in it's response and is sensitive to world opinion. Don't try such tactics against a Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
Eastern Europe 1989 was able to take advantage of a collapsing regime in the USSR which had bankrupted itself trying to counter the US in the Cold War and a people that lost their fear of the Kremlin rulers.
Look at Hungary 1956 or Prague 1968 to see what happens when this was attempted while USSR was still powerful.[/i]

 

Roel wrote:

What I meant was how do you explain them in light of your previous statement?


Roel wrote:

BTW That is no blanket rule you are quoting about proportionality of the response. Where I live the rule is much more sensible. When someone enters your home, while you or your family are home, it is reasonable to assume that they intend to do harm to you or your family (is it not?) Economic rational burglers do not enter inhabited dwellings ...unless the inhabitant is 105 years old and helpless (unarmed). They wish to steal your possessions with as little trouble as possible. On the other hand there is a not insignificant chance that people who enter inhabited dwellings mean to do harm to the people within.
In any case, if you have reason to fear( reason that would excite a reasonable person to fear) for your(or your familys) safety you will not be prosecuted for shooting an intruder who enters/attempts to enter, your home.

 

I must admit that in this case, while wholly out of character, gun ownership would have aided the lady (providing that a gun would actually give her the needed comfort!).

How under the curcumstances could a 105 year old lady be expected to load, cock and aim a gun with the co-ordination required in the time required before these thugs were on top of her?

No, sorry but all a gun would have meant in these circumstances was that they had a readily available weapon to additionally terrorise her with, or in all likelihood murder her with and possibly others.

It would not have helped. It would have compounded the problem.

If on the other hand she had any kind of serious security rather than just CCTV (Great isn't it? It can't stop you getting killed but at least you can be filmed whilst it happens! :roll: ), that might have prevented things.

 

Roel wrote:

I must admit I will never understand(Thank God) this idea of weakness and surrender to armed thugs is safer and preferable to defending yourself and your home/family.
Why did not Britain use pacifism to deal with Hitler and the Nazi regime? How successful do you think that tactic would have been?

I understand that you can make that choice for yourself and even for your possibly unfortunate family however when you (not you personally-but figuratively speaking) attempt to make that decision for me as well then we are going to have a problem. Banning private ownership guns is doing just that; you substituting your judgement for mine. I recognize no bureaucrat or commisar's judgement as to what is right for me as being superior to my own judgement.

The good guys don't always win. All life is a gamble and there are no "sure things". We can only give ourselves the best shot at achieving the desirable outcome and strive to overcome the odds. They might have failed in that case but it is no reason to raise our arms in surrender to every potential despot that threatens our liberty.
There is no false patriotism or braggadocio in the statement when I say I would rather die trying to secure a future for my children free of slavery and brutality than to knuckle under and sell them out in order to gain some measure of "comfort" and "safety" for my short term future.

I do not mean to insult anyone when I say that the attitudes expressed here and by too many young people in my country leads me to believe there would be no standing up to the Nazi's brutal lust for power and world domination through the use of force and terror such as occurred about a half century ago in todays generation.
I hope I'm wrong about that. After WW I it was generally believed that war in the future was impossible. Man had come so far. The Great war was so terrible that another like it was unthinkable.
Needless to say they were wrong.
I wouldn't be willing to gamble the future of my children and (unborn) grandchildren on the idea that this time it's true.
Can't happen again.

 

How indeed? It doesn't take much force to fire a handgun. With training she would have been capable of using it IMO. But in any case, this was chosen as an extreme example. Most people are not old and feeble.
Besides would these cowardly thugs have been willing to stake their lives on her inablity to use a gun if they thought she might have one?
That is the deterent factor.

They already terrorized her and it is belived already caused her death so how would she have been worse off?

Surrender. There is no hope. Big Brother will take care of you and keep you safe. Big Brother is watching you

 

No, my point was that in the western world, despotic regimes generally come to power with broad popular support.
Neither Russia, nor China are part of the western world, so Mao and Stalin do not fall under that rule.
Hitler and Mussolini are good examples of "western" despots.

Well, Cuba's neighbours, tough not communist aren't really prosperous either.
And from what I know, Castro is backed by large parts of the cuban population.(If rightfully so is another debate.)

It did last for nearly a decade and would most probably still last, had the west not decided differentely.
You may say that Afghanistan and Iraq are bad examples, but they still are(were) examples of despots ruling over an armed citizenry.

Ok, sorry that was a bad example.

Passive resistance may actually work very well, because it forces the opressors to use violence against unviolent pacific people and thus shows the whole population and the world how unhuman the regime is.
What has more effect on public opinion, soldiers figthing rebells, or soldiers shooting at unarmed manifestants.

I am not saying that pacific methods always prevail over violent ones, but very often they do.