0
   

OK, let's count the murders -- again

 
 
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 04:43 pm

Vin Suprynowicz

OK, let's count the murders -- again

Posted: Feb. 13, 2011 | 2:04 a.m.
As we grow older, hearing an old, familiar tune can make us wax nostalgic.
The other day, I heard this one again:

"Gun control does work in reducing the amount of violent crime.
Any look at the statistics comparing our rates of violent crime
to those of Western Europe is enough to demonstrate that clearly."

Ah, the joy of repeating ourselves. One more time:

What's the murder rate in America, per capita? Right now it's 0.042 per 1,000,
ranking us 24th in the world, behind Colombia (0.617 per thousand --
the missing zero after the decimal point means Colombia's rate is
fifteen times ours), South Africa at 0.496, Jamaica at 0.324,
Venezuela at 0.316, Russia at 0.201 and Mexico at 0.130, among others.

Your American drug war money proudly at work.

Now take four or five European countries, where "sensible gun control
laws" have made it nearly impossible for the typical working-class
citizen to own a personal self-defense or military-style firearm for
the past century. Let's choose Germany, France, Poland, Russia and
the Ukraine.

What's the murder rate for those countries for the past century?

Because they were disarmed by their own governments and thus
unable to resist Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, Stalin's NKVD and starvation
brigades and the gentle ways of the rest of the Wehrmacht and the
Red Army when it comes to "treatment of non-combatants in
conquered territories," at least 30 million civilians were murdered in
those four countries from 1929 to 1945.

We're excluding the "normal" deaths caused by uniformed soldiers
killing each other in times of war, and pretending there were no
other murders in those countries from 1910-2010. But even though
we've left aside people killed when they were in uniform, that
averages out to 300,000 murders of civilians per year for the past
century in Germany, France, Poland, Russia and the Ukraine, combined.

Last year, there were 16,204 murders in America, which has a
current population of about 312 million, compared to a population of
373 million for Germany, France, Poland, Russia and the Ukraine combined.

In fact, there were a thousand murders reported in France last year alone
(Do they batter each other with baguettes?) There were 4,400 in Ukraine,
for a per capita rate there of 0.094, more than twice America's rate.

An average of 300,000 murders per year with "admirably severe gun control,"
versus 16,000 murders per year in a cowboy nation with "ridiculously
little gun control." Hm.

What's that? Oh, you don't want to count those? Well, tough.
If we're debating the costs versus benefits of having an unarmed
populace versus a populace able to defend itself with "all the
terrible instruments of the soldier" (Tench Coxe), you must count
civilians murdered by their own governments, or by the invading
armies of neighboring states, which are precisely the inevitable and
deadly forces that an armed populace is designed to guard against.

I know perfectly well these twits don't want to count those murders
because they were committed by governments -- usually the victims'
own governments. The main reason the founders insisted we retain a
populace armed with "every terrible instrument of the solder" is
because a well-armed force of "plainclothes" citizens, able to act as
a militia, able to take on any standing "regular army" in the streets
and in the fields, is "necessary to the security of a free state" ... an
explanation the gun-grabbers routinely accuse our side of ignoring!

What's that? It's all ancient history? Nothing like that has happened
anywhere for the past 65 years?

How many millions of unarmed Chinamen did Mao Tse-Tung murder in
the 1950s? How many millions of unarmed Cambodians did Pol Pot
murder in the 1970s, including every schoolteacher, every Cambodian
who wore eyeglasses or a watch?

See the chart at http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart.
(There's a hyphen on either side of the "a".) Please.

Cherry-picking a few peaceful decades in Denmark or Luxembourg
because said nations are currently between genocides is not very
convincing proof that you're safer, in the long run, if you encourage
your own government to bar you from owning any useful military or
self-defense weaponry while the guvgoons practice their Kevlar-
swaddled "dynamic entry techniques" by day and by night.

Remember, when the ATF attacked the church at Waco -- as the
helicopters closed in to hose down the second story bedroom
windows from the rear with fully automatic fire, killing nursing mom
Jaydean Wendel as her baby watched from the floor -- the first thing
the black-clad storm troopers did was to shoot and kill the dog and
her puppies in the front-yard pen.

Then they started shooting in through the windows at the women
and children. In some cases, they did this while cowering behind
parked cars and holding their rifles over their heads, in defiance of
their standing orders to withdraw immediately if they met return fire.
One government sniper testified he shot whenever he "saw a curtain move."
For this they got medals.

Time and again, by a factor of hundreds of thousands, your most
likely murderer is the government you trusted to keep you safe.

"The great object is that every man be armed; everyone who is able
may have a gun." (Patrick Henry)

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal,
and author of the novel "The Black Arrow" and the nonfiction
"Send in the Waco Killers." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 581 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 04:56 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
What could account for these figures except the prevalence of firearms besides poverty and the want of justice??? Where people are callous, life is uncertain, and wealth the price of justice -violence is certain and death meaningless... You want to make death meaningful??? Give people the wearwithall to have meaningful lives... Is it too simple??? People do not make themselves into executioners on a whim... And happy people wish only to share their happiness... You must find all those people putting a price on misery, selling envie, pushing want, trading in desparation if you will find those truely guilty of murder... All that howling after the guilty is so much misdirection and distraction... No one is innocent... Many are guilty...Pulling the trigger is but the final act before the curtain drawn, and a new victim is selected... If you will not fix the problem, then no amount of defense will suffice...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 05:38 pm

Every potential victim of predatory violence owes it to himself
to arm himself in self-defense. Failure to do so is irresponsible.





David
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2011 07:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Every potential victim of predatory violence owes it to himself
to arm himself in self-defense. Failure to do so is irresponsible.





David
You miss the point David... We owe our self defense to each other as well; but as well and as much we owe justice to all... If some one wants to come and take my junk when I might just make a present of it to him, then why should I shoot him considering all he takes from me can be replaced while the life I take from him cannot???

In the application of deadly force life and not just goods should be threatened, and personally, we should make a point of knowing that people when they theive are not doing so out of necessity and even misery unanswered by common humanity... We got this notion that people who got here first who themselves stole the land from their king and the natives should should hold it free and clear without obligation to support their society... Then, if that is the case, those people have put themselves outside of society as much as any other sort of criminal and need defense against... Self defense is not some thing we should leave in the hands of individuals... People should be appointed to defend those who cannot defend themselves and all able bodied should defend themseves... But; the real defense is not in arms and the willingness to use them; but in universal justice, and the problem here is obvious, since if there were universal justice there would be little gain to inspire avarice or to defend bloodshed... There are people in this country who own far more land than they could shoot over with the most powerful rifle while many can only be laid out in potter's fields after lives without profit...

Wealth on the one end of society ought to do better than support misery on the other, or no one in between will be safe with their goods... Do you get my point... If the problem is general, a specific solution like hand guns is not the answer... As they are, hand guns are as much the problem as the solution because they add little to the sense of security of those who have them, and much to the insecurity of those without... Everyone ought to have one, and be held responsible in the use of it...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2011 12:36 pm
@Fido,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Every potential victim of predatory violence owes it to himself
to arm himself in self-defense. Failure to do so is irresponsible.





David
Fido wrote:
You miss the point David...
Thay are MY points.
I did not miss them.





Fido wrote:
We owe our self defense to each other as well;
I don 't understand what that means.





Fido wrote:
but as well and as much we owe justice to all...
If some one wants to come and take my junk when I might just
make a present of it to him, then why should I shoot him
Well, its a nice thing to do for your nabors,
whom he may well wish to rob in the future.





Fido wrote:
considering all he takes from me can be replaced
while the life I take from him cannot???
Replacing it can be tiresome, inconvenient or expensive.
The victim shoud not be subjected to any inconvenience.





Fido wrote:
In the application of deadly force life and not just goods should be threatened,
The criminal decides what he will threaten.
That 's his job.
Your job is to kill him before he executes his threat.





Fido wrote:
and personally, we should make a point of knowing that people when they theive
are not doing so out of necessity
and even misery unanswered by common humanity...
That is the criminal's private business.
It is none of our business.
Our business is to kill the criminal as swiftly as possible,
consistent with safety.




Fido wrote:
We got this notion
that people who got here first who themselves stole the land from their king
and the natives should should hold it free and clear without obligation to support their society...
Yes; no obligation.
Ideally, each citizen shoud exploit society as thoroughly as possible
(remembering that we, ourselves, created it thru our association).





Fido wrote:
Then, if that is the case,
those people have put themselves outside of society
as much as any other sort of criminal and need defense against...
???? confusion



Fido wrote:
Self defense is not some thing we should leave in the hands of individuals...
That notion is ineffably contemptible.



Fido wrote:
People should be appointed to defend those who cannot defend themselves
Appointed by what authority? for what pay?
Is that in the social contract?




Fido wrote:
and all able bodied should defend themseves... But; the real defense is not in arms
Nonsense.




Fido wrote:
and the willingness to use them; but in universal justice,
and the problem here is obvious, since if there were universal justice
there would be little gain to inspire avarice or to defend bloodshed...
There are people in this country who own far more land
than they could shoot over with the most powerful rifle
Thay shoud celebrate & enjoy it maximally.




Fido wrote:
while many can only be laid out in potter's fields after lives without profit...
LOSERS.





Fido wrote:
Wealth on the one end of society ought to do better than support misery on the other,
YES; its logical function is to provide joy and beauty to those who own that wealth.





Fido wrote:
or no one in between will be safe with their goods... Do you get my point...
NO.



Fido wrote:
If the problem is general, a specific solution like hand guns is not the answer...
U want nuclear defenses ?




0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » OK, let's count the murders -- again
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 12:07:03