This is an excerpt from a great article by Dennis Prager
How many Jews the Nazis would have murdered if most European Jews had guns is impossible to know. But common sense suggests that the number would have been much lower. The Warsaw Ghetto revolt was begun with 10 old pistols and very little ammunition. Later a few hundred pistols and rifles and a few machine guns were smuggled into the ghetto. Himmler told Hitler he would quell the revolt in three days. It took four weeks. Many hundreds of German troops — perhaps a thousand — were killed or wounded.
If the Nazis knew that Jews refused to go to roundup areas and that many Jews were armed, awaiting Nazis to enter every apartment, it is difficult to imagine that the Nazi genocidal machinery would have been nearly as effective. And, vitally important, even had the number of Jews murdered been near 6 million (which I doubt), not all ways of dying are equal. There is a world of difference between being gassed or shot to death while standing naked beside the mass grave you were forced to dig and getting killed while shooting a Nazi.
The first thing every totalitarian regime does is confiscate weapons. As long as evil people have guns, good people will need to have them. This is true for nations (which is why it is so important for America and for the world that America have the strongest military) and it is true for individuals.
Posts
3 comments:
Food for thought. Everything seems to say if we are allowed to own guns, then others stay more middle of the road.
This is a recurring theme in some circles. However, it's not really relevant.
There is a world of difference between civilians owning guns in peace time, and civilians owning guns in time of war.
The Nazis invaded a number of European countries and fought their soldiers. Who had guns, of course. But were defeated nonetheless.
Do you really think a bunch of untrained, poorly equipped civilians would have made a difference ? Of course not. Of course guns would not have prevented the Holocaust.
A criminal trying to harm you in peace time does not want to die, nor to go to jail. Using a mere gun against him is a deterrent.
A soldier in a disciplined and powerful army is ready to die. If he kills you, he will not go to jail. He might even get a medal.
The Jewish Journal is comparing apples and lemons.
The partisans in WWII made an overall difference. I do not think the author was saying that armed resistance would have saved all the Jews.
What he is saying is that it would have saved some, and that dying fighting is preferable to dying in concentration camps.
The problem, of course, is that the choice is not always so clear.
Another important point is that armed citizens represent a cost to a would be tyrant, that he may not want to pay. It is a deterrent.
I have yet to find an example of democide where the victims were not legally disarmed first.
Post a Comment