PDA

View Full Version : Using the Genocide Defense


Ripon83
07-30-2012, 3:34 PM
Been debating gun control very heavily on another forum, and I've hung my hat on a a "genocide" defense. In this I note that in the last 100 years at least 13,000,000 have been killed by governments / armies and most of those were unable to defend themselves:
- 6,000,000 Europe 1930's and 40's
- 4,000,000 Cambodia 1960-s to early 80's
- 2,000,000 Afghanistan 1970's to early 80's
- 1,000,000 Rawanda (high estimate in 100 day massacre 1994)

I know there are more, sadly many more, but those are the biggest I believe. The opponent knocks the US and its 10,000 victims a year to which I note that'd be 1300 years vs the rest of the world.

Bad defense?

Connor P Price
07-30-2012, 3:46 PM
Link to the chart found here to back up your claim if you haven't already: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

As far as it being a bad defense, I don't know the context of your conversation but generally that argument isn't going to win over any American antis. It's unrealistic to expect a genocide here in the states any time soon. People have an easier time understanding immediate ramifications than ones that may effect people many generations from now. Probably because they don’t really care about what happens a few generations down the road.

jonzer77
07-30-2012, 3:54 PM
Link to the chart found here to back up your claim if you haven't already: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

As far as it being a bad defense, I don't know the context of your conversation but generally that argument isn't going to win over any American antis. It's unrealistic to expect a genocide here in the states any time soon. People have an easier time understanding immediate ramifications than ones that may effect people many generations from now. Probably because they donít really care about what happens a few generations down the road.

I agree.

It is hard to use that argument simply because our normalcy bias that exists. For every genocide you quote, I have noticed that anti's will come back with, well what about Australia, Europe, ect. You can mention that their crime rates have gone up but it doesn't matter because they feel that we as american's are better then them so it doesn't apply.

I have a old friend that has bought into the extreme left liberal mindset and he feels that there is absolutely no reason for us to have guns anymore. He realizes it would be impossible for a gun ban and confiscation because of the shear number of firearms in this country. I have tried arguing self defense, heck he was even mugged before, but since they only took his wallet and cell phone without hitting him he rationalizes that having a gun would have got him killed. He has gone shooting once before but it was at an indoor range and he wasn't thrilled with it so I am working on getting him out shooting at a nice outdoor range.

the_natterjack
07-30-2012, 3:55 PM
Point out Mexico with 30,000+ killed in recent years by criminals.

Firearms ownership is very limited in Mexico, only one legal firearms store in the entire country, so no firearms means limited ability to defend themselves.

- Brian

Ripon83
07-30-2012, 4:17 PM
I haven't used that chart, in part because the Chinese and Russian listings are estimates but then aren't they all; and even their Germany presentation includes the military losses on both sides - I was referring to civilian masses with 4 easy to identify genocides most people can "think" about.

Also the chart didn't note the 2 million lost in Afghanistan to the Russians in the 70's/80's.


Link to the chart found here to back up your claim if you haven't already: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

As far as it being a bad defense, I don't know the context of your conversation but generally that argument isn't going to win over any American antis. It's unrealistic to expect a genocide here in the states any time soon. People have an easier time understanding immediate ramifications than ones that may effect people many generations from now. Probably because they donít really care about what happens a few generations down the road.

Dreaded Claymore
07-30-2012, 6:59 PM
Here is the information you need:

Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right? (http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf) by Dave Kopel.

johnny1290
07-30-2012, 10:07 PM
10s of millions in the soviet union, by anyone's standards.

AeroEngi
07-30-2012, 11:47 PM
Don't forget the Armenian genocide. 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Ottoman Turks in the 1910's.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

hvengel
07-31-2012, 8:48 AM
Here is the information you need:

Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right? (http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf) by Dave Kopel.

This paper put the 20th century genocide total 262 million.

creekside
07-31-2012, 9:01 AM
Been debating gun control very heavily on another forum, and I've hung my hat on a a "genocide" defense.

SNIP

Bad defense?

The problem is that a lot of people "don't believe it can happen here." You have to have a strong realistic grasp of history for the genocide argument to make sense. A personal connection may take the place of that grasp of history: for example, if a friend or relative was interned in World War II or escaped a bloodbath since.

We have Holocaust museums specifically so that people can learn, yes it can happen here. I have a bound copy of the Stroop Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_Report), in German with a US Army translation on facing pages in English (http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/stroop-report/htm/strp020.htm), in which the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto was lovingly documented. It is a chilling document, in which a modern military boasts of overcoming a handful of partisans, murdering thousands and deporting tens of thousands to almost certain death.

That level of human evil is disturbing and most people can't or won't think past it. If they grasp it, they don't grasp that _they_ can do anything about it, either to prevent it or to fight it should it come.

The next issue is the connection between personal arms and genocide, which rapidly derails into a discussion of military tactics and strategy, insurgency, (counter)-terrorism, etc.

It's a "preaching to the choir" type argument. I still make it because it's important, but it's not my first quiver in the arsenal: for me, the self defense argument is pivotal. I see it as two axes:

- personal and family, defense of my life and my loved ones
- nation, defense of my country from all enemies

Your mileage will vary. Thanks for caring.

Ripon83
07-31-2012, 12:43 PM
My debate foe is a fine liberal Brit. Think a londonite employed by the city as a social worker to help city employees. He can't accept his nation, his family and life are at risk. To which I acknowledge that and ask him, but what will you spend, give, do when it happens some where else. How many Brits died in WWII ? How many times will you " let " it happen before it happens to you and we have to come to the rescue, yet again? What if we rent there to protect you?


The problem is that a lot of people "don't believe it can happen here." You have to have a strong realistic grasp of history for the genocide argument to make sense. A personal connection may take the place of that grasp of history: for example, if a friend or relative was interned in World War II or escaped a bloodbath since.

We have Holocaust museums specifically so that people can learn, yes it can happen here. I have a bound copy of the Stroop Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_Report), in German with a US Army translation on facing pages in English (http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/stroop-report/htm/strp020.htm), in which the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto was lovingly documented. It is a chilling document, in which a modern military boasts of overcoming a handful of partisans, murdering thousands and deporting tens of thousands to almost certain death.

That level of human evil is disturbing and most people can't or won't think past it. If they grasp it, they don't grasp that _they_ can do anything about it, either to prevent it or to fight it should it come.

The next issue is the connection between personal arms and genocide, which rapidly derails into a discussion of military tactics and strategy, insurgency, (counter)-terrorism, etc.

It's a "preaching to the choir" type argument. I still make it because it's important, but it's not my first quiver in the arsenal: for me, the self defense argument is pivotal. I see it as two axes:

- personal and family, defense of my life and my loved ones
- nation, defense of my country from all enemies

Your mileage will vary. Thanks for caring.

King Turnip
07-31-2012, 2:04 PM
The Soviet genocides:
The Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Genocide): 10 million dead, with bonus canibalism.
The relatively small liquidation of the Kulaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks): Realistic estimates are about 1 million.

"It couldn't happen here," but it happened in the most advanced, progressive, scientific nation in Europe. The world wanted to emulate the modern, Eugenic vision of Germany. Six million Jews, gays, Romany would have prefered the old way.

BlueVue
07-31-2012, 9:25 PM
The best answer to "well, it would never happen in the US" is to ask how many people they know who've gotten Measles. And yet we vaccinate every child against it.

sharxbyte
07-31-2012, 9:39 PM
The problem is that a lot of people "don't believe it can happen here." You have to have a strong realistic grasp of history for the genocide argument to make sense. A personal connection may take the place of that grasp of history: for example, if a friend or relative was interned in World War II or escaped a bloodbath since.

We have Holocaust museums specifically so that people can learn, yes it can happen here. I have a bound copy of the Stroop Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_Report), in German with a US Army translation on facing pages in English (http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/stroop-report/htm/strp020.htm), in which the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto was lovingly documented. It is a chilling document, in which a modern military boasts of overcoming a handful of partisans, murdering thousands and deporting tens of thousands to almost certain death.

That level of human evil is disturbing and most people can't or won't think past it. If they grasp it, they don't grasp that _they_ can do anything about it, either to prevent it or to fight it should it come.

The next issue is the connection between personal arms and genocide, which rapidly derails into a discussion of military tactics and strategy, insurgency, (counter)-terrorism, etc.

It's a "preaching to the choir" type argument. I still make it because it's important, but it's not my first quiver in the arsenal: for me, the self defense argument is pivotal. I see it as two axes:

- personal and family, defense of my life and my loved ones
- nation, defense of my country from all enemies

Your mileage will vary. Thanks for caring.



This is one of the reasons I believe books like The Hunger Games are so powerful. They take an alien and barbarian concept, and then slam into you how possible it is for humans to embrace evil in only a couple generations.

Alan Block
07-31-2012, 10:57 PM
Being Jewish, the genocide argument is never far away. When people tell me it couldnt happen again, I reply that it happened in Bosnia just a few years ago and in Germany in the lifetime of many people I know. Are Germans and Serbs so different from us that you would bet your life. I am a big fan of JPFO and agree with the idea that every oe of us should be armed.

Ripon83
08-01-2012, 7:41 AM
I often point out the starving people in Africa, arent the one's with guns.

hvengel
08-01-2012, 2:44 PM
The main point for this argument is not that it is likely to happen here but rather that it has only happened to populations where the perpetrators systematically disarmed the victims BEFORE the killing started. At that point the argument becomes do we really want to be disarmed in light of the possibly horrific consequences?