'If
Only We Were Armed Before'
by
Vin Suprynowicz
by Vin Suprynowicz
DIGG THIS
One R. Lane
wrote in on March 31:
"After
reading his March 23 diatribe, it is clear to me that Review-Journal
columnist Vin Suprynowicz has not yet learned the obvious: The
more handguns a country has in circulation, the more handgun deaths
that country is going to get not less.
"The
United States has some 200 million handguns in circulation, and
the highest handgun death rate (per 100,000 population) of any
industrialized nation, with the possible exception of Brazil.
Japan has the fewest number of handguns in circulation and the
lowest handgun death rate per 100,000.
"If
all these guns make us safer, we should be the safest nation on
earth."
Thus endeth
R. Lane's succinct submission.
Wow. This really
simplifies the question, doesn't it? All we have to do is look to
see if we can find any historic examples where a government has
banned access to handguns for a sizeable portion of the population,
and see what that did to handgun death rates among that population.
And you know
what? It turns out R. Lane is correct!
Back in the
1920s and 1930s, the forward-thinking German "Weimar"
republic effectively banned firearms possession by just about anyone
but the military, the government police, and the ruling "Junker"
class, members of whom were allowed to keep their fancy hunting
rifles.
The ban was
particularly effective among the ethnic minorities, such as the
Jews.
Was this effective
in keeping the Jews from killing each other with handguns? Yes!
Later, when
millions of Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps
including Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be exterminated despite
the fact that on some mornings the other prisoners were each given
water and a piece of bread, while the Jewish prisoners were not
allowed to either eat or drink did the Jews kill anyone with
a handgun in order to get some food or water to keep themselves
or their loved ones from starving. No! They couldn't, because they
had no handguns!
You see how
well that works?
Now, some troublemakers
may point out they pretty much all died early and violent deaths
anyway, so the manner in which they died the fact that they
died of starvation, or by being gassed in the extermination chambers,
or being shot with rifle bullets isn't really as important
as the fact that they might have defended themselves and avoided
being loaded on the trains to the death camps if they'd had handguns.
But that's
hardly the point at issue, is it? Besides, what are you saying:
That they should have disobeyed the lawful orders of the duly constituted
authorities?
The government
took away their handguns, and just as R. Lane predicted we'd
find their rate of handgun deaths dropped to almost nothing.
Or did it?
At www.jpfo.org, Aaron Zelman,
head of the civil rights organization Jews for the Preservation
of Firearms Ownership, interviews Holocaust survivor Theodore Haas,
who, as it turns out, managed to get himself shot with a handgun
while at Dachau more than once despite the ban.
"Q.) You
mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these experiments,
punishment or torture?
"A.) They
were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted while the
brain was not in gear. The sorry results were two 9 mm bullets in
my knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file
and was able to dig the slugs out."
But this, as
R. Lane would doubtless point out, is "the exception that proves
the rule." In contrast, look at the trouble that was caused
when a few surviving Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were allowed to lay
hands on a few handguns on April 19, 1943 (a date which Janet Reno
decided to commemorate 50 years later by gassing and incinerating
a bunch of our own innocent women and babies in a church at Waco,
Texas for daring to possess perfectly legal firearms).
Those Polish
Jews used those handguns to kill Nazi-sympathizing Ukrainian guards
and take away their rifles. Then, with this slight increase in armament,
they were able to hold German Wehrmacht forces at bay for weeks,
tying up units that were badly needed by Hitler on the Russian front.
Surely we can
all agree that was a bad thing. How much better it would have been
had those desperate Jews not been able to get their hands on even
a few handguns. Why, maybe then they would have marched peacefully
onto the trains to the death camps, sparing everyone a whole lot
of trouble.
We return to
my friend Aaron Zelman's interview with concentration camp survivor
Theodore Haas:
"Q.) Did
the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, 'If only we were armed
before, we would not be here now'?
"A.) Many,
many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black
market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned
to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered
gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such
guns. What fools we were. ...
"There
is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved
if the people were not 'brainwashed' about gun ownership and had
been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when
confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved
group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis."
Thus ends the
interview with Theodore Haas.
Other population
groups who saw their rates of death by handgun bullets reduced after
handgun bans included the prosperous Ukrainian farmers under Stalin
in the 1930s, and just about everyone under Mao Tse-Tung in China
after 1949, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia a few decades later. See
these fine "progressive" leaders' proud death tolls at
the "Gun Control
Hall of Fame." But not from handguns!
So now we have
some hard, historical examples of the kind of peaceful paradise
that victim disarmament statists like R. Lane have in mind for us.
Personally,
I don't think aiming to be the "safest" nation on Earth
is shooting very high. I'd much prefer to live in "the freest
and safest" nation on earth. And this was indeed the freest
and safest nation on earth, R. Lane (possibly tied with equally
well-armed Switzerland) from 1782 to about 1912, back when
we were also the best-armed nation on earth.
(De Tocqueville
was astonished to find a single woman could travel the length of
the Mississippi unmolested in the 1830s; few Americans even locked
their doors.)
Since
then, crime has indeed crept upward, along with a lot of other infringements
on our freedoms, our happiness and our prosperity.
What has changed
since 1913 that might help us explain that? Can any of you "progressives"
out there help me, here?
April
18, 2008
Vin
Suprynowicz [send
him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las
Vegas Review-Journal and author of The
Black Arrow.
Copyright
© 2008 Vin Suprynowicz
Vin
Suprynowicz Archives
|