The Genocide Chart: The Human Cost of Gun Control

" This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler, 1935

it is clearly time for that old chestnut; “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

George Santayana (Spanish born American Philosopher)

Shows how much we need those guns.

A national manditory executive order 'gun in every home' and a published list in every newspaper of every person in every city of those that dont own any guns instead believe thier higher power and the law will protect them when the bad guy breaks in.

Ya aint getting the damned guns. Discussion ended.

Are you saying that the only thing stopping the US Government from committing genocide of it's own people is guns? Cause if so, you live in a fantasy.

The charts above contain historical data relating to various 'gun' control schemes around the world. What you/others do with that information by way of extrapolation/inference is your business.

In any case, I, the person who put up the poll, didn't 'say' anything. At least not initially. Since then I've said on numerous occasion that the right to self defense is a HUMAN one, and that, generally, those who wish to limit or eliminate that right have the desire (whether they recognize it or not) to OWN other human beings. You can call it whatever you want. You can couch it in whatever hyperbole you want, but ultimately the 'gun' control proponent wishes to control, and thus own, other human beings.

Lemme know if that is at all unclear to you.

What? How can control mean "own". Are you an anarchist? All laws control people. That's what laws are for. People need to be controlled or else you end up having places like Somalia.

What? How can control mean "own"

Control is a function of ownership. To control a thing is to own it to the degree that you control it. If I control 100 percent of your actions/behaviors, I own 100 percent of you. It's all a matter of degrees/percentages--and since all human rights HINGE on the ability to defend or assert them in self defense, controlling or limiting a person's right to self defense is the PRIMARY assertion of ownership. Those who wish to control guns wish to own people. Period.

Are you an anarchist?

As a Christian I am first a Theocracist (yep--notice the big 'T'; it's there for a reason);
I am second an anarchist, and third a minarchist/classical liberal. The easiest way to understand this is just to call me an anarcho-libertarian.

All laws control people.

Exactly--and each one of those laws is an assertion of ownership. A legitimate government confines itself (or is confined) to ONE function: protection of those within its see from acts of force and fraud. ANY other 'law' is an assertion of control/ownership.

People need to be controlled . . .

Thus saith slavemasters everywhere!

. . .or else you end up having places like Somalia.

ROFLOL! Ahh, yes, the famous allusion to the dreaded 'anarchy'! News flash: Somalia is not an anarchy. It's controlled by warlords. Warlords constitute a form of government.

So you would support not having murder laws? Child pornography laws? Rape laws?

So you. . .

Whenever a person begins a rebuttal with any variation on the phrase "so. . .you," that individual is trying to put words in your mouth or ideas in your head. S/he is trying to project sentiments onto you which are otherwise not there in HOPES of getting you to battle an endless succession of straw men.

In short, the answer to your assumption/projection is no.

. . .would support not having murder laws? Child pornography laws? Rape laws?

READ what I said again:

"A legitimate government confines itself (or is confined) to ONE function: protection of those within its see from acts of force and fraud. ANY other 'law' is an assertion of control/ownership."

Most people understand that murder, rape and, to some degree, child pron are acts of FORCE against the person of another.

You're not being consistent. How can laws mean control, or in your mind ownership, but not laws that protect people?

To the contrary I'm being 100 percent consistent. Laws which 'protect people' do not restrict human activity OTHER than the act of violating the rights of others. Violating the rights of others is, itself, a form of control/ownership. Thus, the only legitimate function of a government is to protect people from acts of force and fraud.

Only in this way is the maximum amount of freedom/liberty possible or attainable in human social systems. Any government beyond that restricts individual freedom/liberty and is thus an assertion of control/ownership of other human beings. After that it's only a matter of degrees.

You might want to study classical liberalism. It may help to iron out any confusion you may have. So might the following video:

I thought libertarians were against governmental force. I hear all these arguments from them saying that force is immoral. But yet you say that the government in this case should use force.

Ahh, it's the word 'legitimate' which has you confused. Yes, THIS libertarian believes it is 'legitimate' to use the force of government to protect others from acts of force and fraud. As a libertarian, though, I also subscribe to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The first act of aggression is/must be committed by an aggressor before the government (as an extension of the individual) can use force to prevent it.

In the case of national defense, that means having a military of sufficient size/might to make attacking the U.S. basically an act of suicide. In the case of of civil protection, that means having a justice system so quick, severe and efficient as to act as a deterrent (similar to that of a powerful military) to would-be criminals. Part of implementing that system rests with the people themselves.

Is such a system perfect, no--but it beats the snot out of the oppressive statist quo.

It just sounds like you're saying all control means ownership, except for this exception.

EDIT: I do agree with you though that it's better than the status quo.

This really isn't an exception unless you believe (or just want to argue that) the right to violate others is a human right as well. I don't. That's why I said the only LEGITIMATE function of government was. . .

Now you're the one sticking words in my mouth. I believe that government, if it has the power to do some good in people's lives, than it has a moral obligation to do so. Same goes for all of humankind.

How did I put words in your mouth? I said "UNLESS" and "OR [you] just wanted to argue that" point.

I agree with you about the moral obligation of humankind, but not about government. Government is an instrument of force. As a bureaucratic entity, it is also an amplifier of human evil.

Then we agree to disagree.

Cool. I applaud your civility, though.

I applaud yours as well. Most libertarians are very civil when it comes to debate. Now if only the Republican Party can move out of the way. I'd like to see the Libertarian Party become a major party, instead of a 3rd party.

Until Ronnie Ray-guns came along, the Republican party and the Libertarian party were almost indistinguishable--which is odd when you consider that the first 'libertarian republican' was Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was Reagan's unofficial mentor.

I wouldn't say that. Lincoln was a Republican who would not let the South secede, and he also instituted the first federal income tax. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Lincoln was, by today's standards, a progressive. So were most Republicans (a new party in Lincoln's day). Party roles have SWITCHED over the years.

I agree. The liberals and conservatives of the past are not the same kind that exist today. It's a shame really.

I call it the great political rope-a-dope. Ten to fifty years from now (IF we last that much longer), Republicans will be the new progressives. They're already having to remake themselves into something more palatable now.

lol IF we last that long, indeed. Fifty years from now both parties will look different when it comes to social issues, but they will still be controlled by the banks.

That's what I try to keep explaining to liberals (unfortunately, to no avail): if you wanna disempower the 'evil rich,' you MUST disempower government. Government is the TOOL of the rich, and it always will be.

If you believe that the government's job is to protect the people from force and fraud then government should be given more power to go after the bankers, or maybe just get out of the way so we can guillotine them in the streets for their crimes.

Why would I want to give more power to a government which is OWNED by the very same bankers?

As for public justice, that's what I call hands-on, local/situational governance--and yes, if the government won't act to protect the citizens from acts of force or fraud as committed by bankers, then the public has a right to defend itself. (I won't 'flower' that last sentence with details for obvious reasons.)

What does i mean to say that "if it has the power to do some good in people's lives, than it has a moral obligation to do so"?

It means if you can do some good in someone's life then it's your duty to do it.

How is government going to do good without first doing harm?

I don't understand your question. I don't see how you think that the government has to harm someone in order to help someone. For example, the government can help hurricane victims by sending supplies and manpower to help them. The government never had to harm anyone to do that.

I suppose those that dont own guns rely on thier god, the laws, police and possiby others to protect them? Highly unlikely and not a logical conclusion. If the bad guy knows the home owner does not have any firearm, versus one that does who is the bad guy going to victimize?

Probably the guy in the house with guns, that often runs around in SWAT Gear, practicing on his punching bag in his back yard, and is always having his LEO friends over for a BBQ!

Criminals do the stupidest stuff sometimes - like trying to rob a donut shop across the street from a police station at 7am!

It doesn't matter if a place has guns or not. I've seen stories of people trying to rob police stations!
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/...
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.c...
http://www.azcentral.com/offb...

I have no problem with anyone every who threatens me. I will aim and shoot, anyone directly in the head.

Get 'em, Sass!