More Macaca Caca

[Doug]

Now I am saying that gun control laws, to the extent that they are effective, are a contributing factor to genocide. Obviously, if such laws are unenforced and ignored, then they have little or no effect. The other extreme case is that the law is so draconian that everyone obeys, so it doesn't need actual enforcment. That's why we need to speak of "effectiveness."

DOUG
OK, you're still refuted. In the case of the Croatians and the Guatemalans, both sides had arms and used them. QED.

Even the Rwanda genocide of the Hutus against the Tutsis involved armed militias of Tutsis. See here.

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> I am saying that gun control laws, to the extent that they are effective, are a contributing factor to genocide.

Doug> OK, you're still refuted. In the case of the Croatians and the Guatemalans, both sides had arms and used them. QED.

I don't follow your reasoning here, Doug. How have you proved that gun control laws did not contribute to the Serb genocide of Croatians (Guat genocide of Indians)? (For now, I'll stipulate that these were really genocides.)

It seems to me that you have only shown that genocides can be perpetrated on people who are not totally disarmed. As I've pointed out, that says absolutely nothing about whether gun control laws were contributory. If these people had less arms than they would have had, due to victim disarmament laws, then such laws contributed.

[Dardedar]

Even the Rwanda genocide of the Hutus against the Tutsis involved armed militias of Tutsis. See here.

DAR
Hey, I hadn't read your comment when I made my similar point about Rwanda (minutes ago) in another thread.

To quote from your link above:

"Insurgent militias, which include members of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe gangs and some former refugees, have committed hundreds of killings both for political reasons and in pursuit of their genocidal ideology. They also seek to create panic and undermine confidence in the Government's ability to protect the population. In 1998 insurgents stepped up propaganda efforts, distributing hate literature and newspapers designed to persuade readers of the justness of their cause, their strength against the Government, and the evil intentions of the government's Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)"

So the killers were largely fighting against the government. Could JPFO really have it ass backwards? If you read the above it sounds like they were fighting for some kind of anarchy. What a mess.

D.

[Hogeye]

Apparently Darrel doesn't know that Rwanda Decree-Law No. 12, 1979, confiscated arms and made carrying illegal, greatly contributing to genocide by various parties.

[Doug]

Hogeye> I am saying that gun control laws, to the extent that they are effective, are a contributing factor to genocide.

Doug> OK, you're still refuted. In the case of the Croatians and the Guatemalans, both sides had arms and used them. QED.

I don't follow your reasoning here, Doug. How have you proved that gun control laws did not contribute to the Serb genocide of Croatians (Guat genocide of Indians)? (For now, I'll stipulate that these were really genocides.)

DOUG
The Croatians were not disarmed, the Guatamalan guerrillas were not disarmed, the Rwandan Tutsis were not disarmed. So "to the extent that they are effective, are a contributing factor to genocide" suggests that since they were not effective, the gun control laws were not a factor.

[Dardedar]

greatly contributing to genocide

DAR
Show this.

by various parties.

DAR
Your claim was "the government" murdered the people and performed the genocide. Now it's "various parties."

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Yet the largest genocide (or attempt at same) on this continent had nothing to do with gun control (although it was attempted to "finish the job" with guns a century or so later). Some 90% of the folks living on this continent when Europeans first "settled" it were killed through biological warfare - selling small pox infected blankets, etc. to the natives. I don't remember the exact population stats, but it was something horrendous, like 90 million. That's why America was "empty" and open for settlement west of the Atlantic coastal area.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Here is how the JPFO group did their little game. They looked at all of the instances of genocide (actually I should check and see if they purposely missed any others, as Barbara points out), then they looked to see if there had ever been an instance of gun control in the country's history. Just imagine. Of course, 90% of the time, maybe more, you are going to find that. So rather than a correlation showing gun control "facilitates" genocide, they are just finding something that you find 90% of the time anyway. It's like me discovering that that 90% of my piano tuning customers are right-handed and thinking there is something profound in such a mundane and expected statistic. Sigh.

Regarding "facilitating." When I buy a stamp I am "facilitating" the financial success of the post office but not at all to any significant degree. This is why faciliating is so vague if the degree of significance is not shown.

D.

[Hogeye]

The Croatians were not disarmed, the Guatamalan guerrillas were not disarmed, the Rwandan Tutsis were not disarmed. So "to the extent that they are effective, are a contributing factor to genocide" suggests that since they were not effective, the gun control laws were not a factor.

But the were effective. To a very great extent in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. (I don't know enough about Guatemala to say.) In Rwanda, disarmed civilians were what made it easy for govt and non-govt militias to kill. In Yugoslavia, victim disarmament laws made it easy for former soldiers with guns (not subject to disarmament laws) to kill minorities. Croatians were a privileged group allowed to join the govt army - for this reason some had guns.

Your statement that, if gun control laws are ignored and unenforced (are not effective) is trivially true, but that does not contradict the claim under discussion: gun control laws (to the extent they are effective) contribute to genocide.

Barbara, as you know, by the mid-1800s it was generally illegal to sell guns to Indians. Gun control laws certainly contributed to the extermination of the plains indians. You are correct that European diseases were the main killer of North American indians, but it's a stretch to call that genocide. Much of that happened accidentally. The recent History Channel show on the Pilgrams pointed out that many of the local indians had already died from Euro-plagues by the time they settled at Plymouth rock. Apparently all it took was a few trappers and explorers.

Here is how the Cancer Society group did their little game. They looked at all of the instances of lung cancer (actually I should check and see if they purposely missed any others, as Barbara points out), then they looked to see if there had ever been an instance of tobacco smoking in the patient's history. Just imagine. Of course, 90% of the time, maybe more, you are going to find that. So rather than a correlation showing smoking "facilitates" lung cancer, they are just finding something that you find 90% of the time anyway. It's like me discovering that that 90% of my piano tuning customers are right-handed and thinking there is something profound in such a mundane and expected statistic. Sigh.

I might add that for both cigarette smoking-cancer and victim disarmament-genocide, there is a causual explanation that adds weight to the connection. For the former, there is a toxics in smoke causing mutation explanation, for the latter there is a praxeological explanation. This laws of human action-based explanation was outlined in another unrelated thread. I'll copy it in here:

Do you believe that people prefer more of a good to less? I confess; I have no idea why you don't recognize "gun control facilitates genocide" as an obvious truism. To me, it is a rather obvious application of the praxeological law that (ceteris paribus) people prefer more of a good to less (and less of a bad to more.) My reasoning:

A State's gun control laws provides penalties (a bad) for violation. (def of gun control law)
Thus, ceteris paribus, there will be a reduction in gun ownership. (Prax Law 1)
A reduction in gun ownership makes genocide easier. (since it is easier and safer to kill unarmed people than armed people.)
Ergo, gun control facilitates genocide.

(Note that this argument is analytic; it requires virtually no empirical data, just simple definitions and a law of human action.)

As I read him, Darrel is now graciously admitting that gun control laws contribute to genocide, but he disputes whether they contribute to any significant degree.

[Doug]

The Croatians were not disarmed, the Guatamalan guerrillas were not disarmed, the Rwandan Tutsis were not disarmed. So "to the extent that they are effective, are a contributing factor to genocide" suggests that since they were not effective, the gun control laws were not a factor.

But the were effective. To a very great extent in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. (I don't know enough about Guatemala to say.) In Rwanda, disarmed civilians were what made it easy for govt and non-govt militias to kill. In Yugoslavia, victim disarmament laws made it easy for former soldiers with guns (not subject to disarmament laws) to kill minorities. Croatians were a privileged group allowed to join the govt army - for this reason some had guns.

DOUG
I cited examples that showed that you are incorrect. On Rwanda: It is well known that the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) had arms (obtained from Ugandan sympathizers). So the genocide against the Tutsis happened even though both sides were armed. In fact, the RPF was eventually victorious, and they were the group being massacred. See here and here. In the latter, we read:

"Finally, in July, the RPF captured Kigali. The government collapsed and the RPF declared a ceasefire."

Hogeye, how could they declare a ceasefire if only the other side had arms? How could the Tutsis capture cities and take over the government if they had no arms to use against armed opponents?

Your statement that, if gun control laws are ignored and unenforced (are not effective) is trivially true, but that does not contradict the claim under discussion: gun control laws (to the extent they are effective) contribute to genocide.

DOUG
On the contrary, this disposes of your argument entirely. It is pointless to argue that gun control laws exert influence on whether there is a genocide if it is irrelevant on your view whether the gun controls laws have any effect. That is absurd.

[Dardedar]

That is absurd.

DAR
Once again a Hoggian argument is followed to it's logical conclusion.

[Hogeye]

Doug, your examples don't show that some/many people weren't disarmed. They simply show that there existed some people who were armed. The vast majority of Rwandans, both Hutu and Tutsi, were disarmed. The masses were at the mercy of various armed factions. I think the flaw in your arguments is categorizing people in just two groups. In fact, there are at least four: armed Hutus, armed Tutsis, unarmed Hutus, and unarmed Tutsis. The latter two groups were massacred by the former two. It is improper to equivocate the masses of unarmed Tutsis with some small militia group and claim the Tutsis were armed.

It is pointless to argue that gun control laws exert influence on whether there is a genocide if it is irrelevant on your view whether the gun controls laws have any effect.

But that is not my view; I explicitly said that gun laws contribute to genocide to the extent they are effective. This is like saying that anti-atheist laws in Arkansas discriminate against atheists to the extent that such laws are effective. If those laws have never been enforced, and are unlikely to ever be enforced, and will be declared unconstititional and laughed out of court if someone ever tries to enforce them, then they are not effective and do not contribute to discrimination. Put another way, having a gun control law on the books does not magically contribute to genocide; its the enforcement of such laws that contribute to genocide.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye - some 90% of the people who were here prior to the "Pilgrims" landing in what is now Massachusetts died of European diseases. Selling blankets to the Indians from pesthouses shows a deliberate genocidal intent. The 19th century efforts - as nasty as they were - were not a pimple on the butt of the biological warfare efforts of the 17th century. You've bought both of the U.S. historical myths - that disease-related deaths were accidental and that the natives were "outgunned" since their weapons didn't include firearms. The natives were holding their own quite nicely, thank you, using their own weaponry and "nontraditional" tactics until their numbers were too reduced to continue to do so.

If the intent is genocide, guns don't do the trick. It's as simple as that. The Nazis started out shooting people, but it took so long and so many resources, even lining them up 3-deep on the edge of the crater they were to be buried in (so 1 bullet would take out 3 people), that they stopped that sort of thing in favor shipping them off to concentration camps and the gas chambers.

[Hogeye]

Hogeye - some 90% of the people who were here prior to the "Pilgrims" landing in what is now Massachusetts died of European diseases.

Agreed.

Selling blankets to the Indians from pesthouses shows a deliberate genocidal intent.

Agreed. And there were such incidents, esp. during and after the Revolutionary War. But the question is whether such deliberate attempts had more effect than inadvertent transmission by prior explorers and traders. My impression is that most of the indians who died from European diseases were exposed by casual interaction with white explorers, fur traders, and settlers, and the bulk of eastern indians had already died (or moved) by the Revoltionary War. IOW I suspect that if you look at the New England Indian population in 1600 and compare it with 1750 (before major deliberate transmissions), the population had already declined to a fraction of its earler level.

If the intent is genocide, guns don't do the trick.

If your point is that biological warfare can be, and has been, more effective in committing genocide than firearms, I agree. If your point is that the Holocaust, Armenian "genocide," Ukrainian "genocide," rape of Nanjing, and Rwanda "genocide" were not really genocide, then we have a mere semantic argument. Recognizing that none of these fully wiped out the target population, I request that you stipulate that the Holocaust, Rwanda, etc. were "genocide." If your point is that guns did not contribute to kidnapping Jews, herding them on trains, and filling concentration camps, I strongly disagree.

[Doug]

Doug, your examples don't show that some/many people weren't disarmed. They simply show that there existed some people who were armed. The vast majority of Rwandans, both Hutu and Tutsi, were disarmed. The masses were at the mercy of various armed factions.

Yet there were militias that fought the Hutus successfully. If some/many people have arms and fight, yet are victims of genocide, what does that tell you about the necessity of disarmament regarding genocide?

I think the flaw in your arguments is categorizing people in just two groups. In fact, there are at least four: armed Hutus, armed Tutsis, unarmed Hutus, and unarmed Tutsis. The latter two groups were massacred by the former two. It is improper to equivocate the masses of unarmed Tutsis with some small militia group and claim the Tutsis were armed.

Armed Tutsis were killed too, so your distinction is arbitrary.

It is pointless to argue that gun control laws exert influence on whether there is a genocide if it is irrelevant on your view whether the gun controls laws have any effect.

But that is not my view; I explicitly said that gun laws contribute to genocide to the extent they are effective. This is like saying that anti-atheist laws in Arkansas discriminate against atheists to the extent that such laws are effective. If those laws have never been enforced, and are unlikely to ever be enforced, and will be declared unconstititional and laughed out of court if someone ever tries to enforce them, then they are not effective and do not contribute to discrimination. Put another way, having a gun control law on the books does not magically contribute to genocide; its the enforcement of such laws that contribute to genocide.

You had said, "Genocide coincides with gun control laws." (12/1/06) But I have yet to see you produce evidence that this is so, and I have produced counter-evidence.

[Hogeye]

Yet there were militias that fought the Hutus successfully. If some/many people have arms and fight, yet are victims of genocide, what does that tell you about the necessity of disarmament regarding genocide?

That tells me several things. But before I list them, let me point out that my (and JPFOs) claim is not about "necessity." It is about what is conducive to genocide, what contributes to genocide. We say nothing about gun control laws being either necessary or sufficient for genocide. After all, there were no doubt genocides before the invention of gunpowder weapons.

Now, "if some/many people have arms and fight, yet are victims of genocide," that tells me that

1) being armed is not a guarantee that you will successfully defend yourself
2) some people are smart/courageous enough to defend themselves from aggression
3) these people are, ceterus paribus, making it more costly for their attackers to commit genocide, and thus
4) even in their failure to survive, they have contributed to inhibiting genocide (not only by possibly reducing the genocidal forces, but by demonstrating that there can be a clear cost, thus reducing the incentive for future attacks on others.

While it is true that genocide often coincides with gun control laws, the formulation I am now defending is: Gun control contributes to genocide.

I suggest that, to avoid weak arguments, you test them with the smoking - lung cancer analogy. The last puerile attempts at counter argument - i.e. the Hutu and Tutsi thing, have been like this:

I knew a guy named Fred Hutu, who never smoked a cigarette in his life, and got lung cancer. And another guy, Tom Tutsi, wouldn't touch tobacco with a ten foot pole, and he got lung cancer. Therefore, smoking does not contribute to lung cancer.

The non sequitur would have been obvious had you used the analogy.

[Doug]

Yet there were militias that fought the Hutus successfully. If some/many people have arms and fight, yet are victims of genocide, what does that tell you about the necessity of disarmament regarding genocide?

That tells me several things. But before I list them, let me point out that my (and JPFOs) claim is not about "necessity." It is about what is conducive to genocide, what contributes to genocide.

OK, when if ever are you going to attempt to show this?

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> Gun control contributes to genocide.

Doug> OK, when if ever are you going to attempt to show this?

I already have. The evidence is the list of genocides in the 20th century and the praxeological argument above. The praxeological argument alone should be enough to convince you. It's very simple stuff, really; if anything simpler than the "tobacco smoking contributes to lung cancer" claim. I suspect that the only reason you deny it is psychological - you think that somehow you are conceding a major point against your pro-victim-disarmament position - so your logic goes out the window.

If I were arguing the negative, I'd concede the obvious (that gun control contributes to genocide), and argue that it has less weight than crime issues. I.e. Argue on a utilitarian basis that, even though any given genocide has massive death, the probability of a given country with gun control having a genocide is small, so the expected number of deaths is less than the expectancy of deaths due to gun crime. (Given the sheer numbers of people murdered by their own States in the 20th century, this may involve arguing that the 20th century was exceptional, a special case.)

[Doug]

Hogeye> Gun control contributes to genocide.

Doug> OK, when if ever are you going to attempt to show this?

I already have. The evidence is the list of genocides in the 20th century and the praxeological argument above.

DOUG
A list of genocides is not evidence that gun control "contributes" to them.

I have cited several examples of genocides in the 20th century where both sides were armed.

You have been refuted.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Genocide is defined as the deliberate attempt to kill an entire race, ethnicity, or culture. Therefore, anyone making the attempt is committing genocide, no matter how successful they are (or aren't). The definition doesn't go into the methodology.

The only reason I would want to have a gun is if I become terminally ill. Since I can purchase a gun at that time, should it happen, I don't have a gun around the house. In most societies there is some level of gun control, but most people can legally get a gun if they really want one (get a license, waiting period, join a target club, etc.). Most people don't want one, for whatever reason.

Yes, it is true that a person with a gun can shoot a person without a gun. That person can also shoot a person with a gun. And a person without a gun has been known to overcome a person with a gun. Most insurrections and popular "defenses" are fought by people who didn't have guns unless they took them from somebody else (an "enemy"). Guns are distance weapons. The greater the distance, the better the odds for the gun holder (providing he can shoot straight). The closer in the fighting is, the less odds favor the firearmed fighter (not saying they don't favor the guy with the gun, just that the odds are no longer largely in his favor - say 55-45 instead of 75-25). The only time the gun wielder is 100% favored is if the other person doesn't fight back. People who don't fight back won't do it even if they have a gun. Hogeye's stats are not conclusive of causation. I'd say insufficient resources - especially in a society with sufficient resources, but all in the hands of a small "elite" - combined with a "divide and conquer" mythology put out by those very same unequal resource holders is the cause of genocide. (Just like it is the cause of the "immigration" issues here in America.)