More Macaca Caca

[Doug]

It is not a sufficient condition to show the truth of your conclusion to simply show that all countries with genocide had gun control laws.

Right, but it is good evidence for the proposition, especially in conjunction with the fact that countries without gun control (and with minor gun control) did not have genocides.

DOUG
OK, but you are still leaving room to play "contributes to," "is a factor in," etc. Correlation is not causation.

The third point of evidence is the praxeological argument, showing cause. So we have:

1) Virtually* all States which had genocides in the last century had effective gun control. (*In fact, all we know of at this time.)

DOUG
Guatemala had clashes of militias with government, genocidal troops. With armed militias, there was obviously no effective gun control. Yet there was genocide. The same with the Croatians killed by Serbs. And Tutsis killed by Hutus. All those victimized groups had armed militias fighting back.

2) Virtually* no States without effective gun control had a genocide. (*In fact, none we know of at this time.)

DOUG
I just gave you three examples. You've had these examples for some time now.

3) The praxeological argument gives a process/explanation of causation for 1 and 2.

These three points, I contend, are ample to show that the proposition is almost certainly true.

Now, why do you think it's not true?

DOUG
It not true because:
a. There are examples of genocide without effective gun control in place first.
b. There are examples of effective gun control laws in which there was no genocide.

[Hogeye]

Most residents of countries experiencing genocide, had a bowel movement each day, thus, having bowel movements contributes to genocide.

But there is no explanation of causuality per #3. Smoking / lung cancer has a connecting explanation in the mutation theory of cancer. Gun control / genocide has a connecting explanation in the praxeology.

"People killed in the 20th century by their own governments after being disarmed by gun control laws: 170 million," is a true statement, which can be verified by looking at the historical records. (Already linked several times.) If you want to deny the holocaust, or the Armenian, Ukrainian, Jap on China, or China "Cultural Revolution" genocides, start a new thread. That should be interesting! We haven't had any holocaust deniers here, yet.

What countries do not have, or have not had, have gun control? List them.

Switzerland comes to mind as a country with little gun control. Very low crime; "assault weapons" common in many homes, etc. I'll surf around any try to find a list of little or no gun control countries. I notice you're up to your old tricks again - trying to set up a strawman (in this case of absolutely no gun control.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Actually, Switzerland has very strick gun control laws. The "assault weapon" also know as army rifle in "every" home is there, along with an army uniform (with train ticket to deployment area in the pocket), to dispense with the need for an armory/meeting and arming point for when their army deploys. These weapons are only in the homes of members of the army. The fact that every able-bodied male from 15 to 55 is in their army is why there are so many homes with army rifles in them. Any other guns owned by Swiss goes through shooting clubs (trained and more or less licensed). In Switzerland it is much harder to get a gun than in America. Just because there is wider (as a percent of population) gun ownership doesn't mean it isn't more controlled.

[Hogeye]

Actually, Switzerland has very strict gun control laws.

What is the basis for this claim? Judging from the Wikipedia article, Swiss laws are similar, and in some areas more liberal, than US laws. As in the US, legally one is supposed to have a concealed carry permit to carry non-openly. (One wonders whether such laws are commonly ignored, as in the US.) Some tidbits from the Wiki article:

"Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit."
"To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed..."
"After turning 18, any individual can buy single-round or multiple-barrelled long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit. Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles."

About the assault rifle: "Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.6 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place. When relieved of duty, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment."

As I mentioned earlier, we need to agree on definitions for low, medium, and high levels of gun control, and somehow distinguish between laws that are merely "on the books," and laws that are actually enforced regularly. ("effectiveness") Conversely, we need to take into account gun control which is effective but not on the books.

Just because there is wider (as a percent of population) gun ownership doesn't mean it isn't more controlled.

Right. But the gun ownership rate may be a good indicator of effective gun control. E.g. A high ownership rate may mean the laws on the books are pretty much ignored, or simply can't be enforced effectively since so many people have weapons (e.g. it may take massive illegal surveillance to determine which people own non-licensed firearms, similar to anti-sodomy laws where it would take massive illegal bedroom spying to find out who plays 69 or buggers.)

[Doug]

Just because there is wider (as a percent of population) gun ownership doesn't mean it isn't more controlled.

Right. But the gun ownership rate may be a good indicator of effective gun control. E.g. A high ownership rate may mean the laws on the books are pretty much ignored, or simply can't be enforced effectively since so many people have weapons (e.g. it may take massive illegal surveillance to determine which people own non-licensed firearms, similar to anti-sodomy laws where it would take massive illegal bedroom spying to find out who plays 69 or buggers.)

DOUG
Gee, and it could be that gun control laws are compatible with gun ownership, just as car control laws are compatible with car ownership.

Ya think?

[Hogeye]

Gee, and it could be that gun control laws are compatible with gun ownership, just as car control laws are compatible with car ownership.

I seriously doubt it; gun control almost certainly reduces the rate of gun ownership. I suspect that OTBE the more authoritarian the laws, the smaller the ownership rate. Actually, I'm not sure that automobile licensing increases auto ownership over a voluntary market system, e.g. a system of private roads and voluntary accreditation. That's one we won't know until/unless we succeed in getting rid of our oppressive State. Praxeologically, if car ownership is more expensive due to regulation and licensing, then there would be less auto ownership, OTBE. (I do think that govt subsidies for roads and highways made for more cars and less trains than would otherwise have been.) But we digress...

[Doug]

Gee, and it could be that gun control laws are compatible with gun ownership, just as car control laws are compatible with car ownership.

I seriously doubt it; gun control almost certainly reduces the rate of gun ownership.

DOUG
Didn't you just see Barbara's post about Switzerland. You blind?

[Dardedar]

DAR
I ask for a list of these countries that have no gun control and he gives Switzerland!? Switzerland? Jesus Christ, I thought I was dealing with someone that had a clue about this issue.

the more authoritarian the laws, the smaller the ownership rate.

DAR
Actually, Canada has much stricter gun control laws than the US and gun owner ship rate is about the same (much more of Canada is located outdoors).

Smoking / lung cancer has a connecting explanation in the mutation theory of cancer.

DAR
You still don't understand your basic problem which simply imports into your analogy. Nearly all people in the society get lung cancer whether they smoke or not, just like almost all (or apparently all) countries have gun control, genocide or no, so any correlation with genocide is COMPLETELY to be expected. Just like with bowel movements.

Switzerland?

Dear God.

This tells me your claim is even more bogus than I thought (and believe me, I thought it was pretty bogus). To even get your claim in the ball game, you need countries with no gun control. Lots of them actually.

Quoting well known gun-nut spinmeister fact fudger John Lott:

"If Switzerland has made any mistake, it is that their gun-control laws are already too strict. After Jan. 1, 1999, Swiss concealed-handgun owners were required to have a permit and had to demonstrate to the authorities that they needed a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precise danger."
link

"People killed in the 20th century by their own governments after being disarmed by gun control laws: 170 million," is a true statement,...

DAR
Of course it isn't and you have already been shown this. For example, Rwanda was a genocide largely of people fighting AGAINST the government.

D.

[Hogeye]

To even get your claim in the ball game, you need countries with no gun control.

No, that's your strawman. We merely need examples of relatively more and relatively less gun control. Most people would put the US and Switzerland in the latter category.

BTW, the main genocide in Rwanda consisted of the Hutu government (with informal support) murdering Tutsis. All these count in the "murdered by their own government" tally. The counter-genocides by the Tutsi militias don't. Naturally, it is hard to get firm numbers on "death by government."

Back to discussing the thesis: Gun control is causally connected with genocide.

Guatemala had clashes of militias with government, genocidal troops. With armed militias, there was obviously no effective gun control.

Ah, I finally see why you think this is a counter-example - you think that some factions having arms means there were no effective gun control laws. This, however does not follow. As far as I can tell, the peasants were generally disarmed (the gun control was effective). As in other examples we've touched on (Armenia, Croats in Yugoslavia), there can be effective gun control despite a relative few being successful in caching weapons and ammo. From the PPU genocide site:

URNG's guerrillas could not provide assistance to the Mayan Indians: there were too few of them. There were certainly too few to be a real threat to the State, whose massive and brutal campaign was largely driven by long-term racist prejudice against the Mayan majority. Of the human rights violations recorded, the State and the Army were responsible for 93%, the guerrillas for 3%. - (link)

So that busts your Guat example. I've already busted your Croat example - virtually the only minorities who ducked the Yugoslav gun control laws were Croats who had been in the Yugoslav army and had weapons from there. I've also already busted the Rwanda example: The Hutu government disarmed most Tutsis with Decree-Law No. 12, 1979, among other laws. The very few armed Tutsis in militias were ineffective in stopping the genocide. Most Tutsis were unarmed. (Most Hutus, too, for that matter, which made the counter-genocides so easy.)

It looks like we need to carefully define and agree on what constitutes "effective gun control." From my perspective, it appears that you want to take the existence of small rather inconsequential armed groups as showing gun control laws are ineffective, even when the main body of population has been disarmed. Whereas I would take effective gun control to mean the laws resulted in less gun ownership than otherwise would be the case. A large discrepancy there!

Doug, you have not commented on the praxeological argument. Do you more or less agree with it?

[Doug]

Guatemala had clashes of militias with government, genocidal troops. With armed militias, there was obviously no effective gun control.

Ah, I finally see why you think this is a counter-example - you think that some factions having arms means there were no effective gun control laws. This, however does not follow. As far as I can tell, the peasants were generally disarmed (the gun control was effective).

DOUG
Silly me for thinking that well enforced gun control laws don't rule out illegally armed militias clashing with the government. Maybe there are permits for that.

So that busts your Guat example.

DOUG
No, you haven't shown anything to bust it. Where is your evidence that gun control laws contributed to the genocide.?

I've already busted your Croat example - virtually the only minorities who ducked the Yugoslav gun control laws were Croats who had been in the Yugoslav army and had weapons from there.

DOUG
You asserted. Now prove.

I've also already busted the Rwanda example: The Hutu government disarmed most Tutsis with Decree-Law No. 12, 1979, among other laws. The very few armed Tutsis in militias were ineffective in stopping the genocide. Most Tutsis were unarmed. (Most Hutus, too, for that matter, which made the counter-genocides so easy.)

DOUG
Ah, the armed militias that WON the conflict, with arms, don't show that gun control was ineffective. OK. Sure.

Doug, you have not commented on the praxeological argument. Do you more or less agree with it?

DOUG
I'm not sure what argument you mean. I've roasted all your arguments. That was probably in the ashes somewhere.

[Hogeye]

Silly me for thinking that well enforced gun control laws don't rule out illegally armed militias clashing with the government. Maybe there are permits for that.

Yes, quite silly - like thinking drug control laws eliminate drug use.

You asserted. Now prove.

No, you asserted they were counter-examples. The burden of proof is on you.

Ah, the armed militias that WON the conflict, with arms, don't show that gun control was ineffective.

You continue to ignore the vast majority of unarmed people, many of whom were murdered. Gun control was very effective on them. Instead, you want to look at the few guerrillas armed from other countries.

Once more, the praxeologic argument. Please don't duck it again.

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.)

[Doug]

Silly me for thinking that well enforced gun control laws don't rule out illegally armed militias clashing with the government. Maybe there are permits for that.

Yes, quite silly - like thinking drug control laws eliminate drug use.

DOUG
Then you just lost. You have asserted that gun control laws "contribute" to genocide to the extent that they are effective. Now you seem to want to say that gun control laws just have to be on the books to "contribute" to genocide. Your position has been reduced to absurdity.

You asserted. Now prove.

No, you asserted they were counter-examples. The burden of proof is on you.

DOUG
I already met that burden. What I had referred to in asking you to prove something was that you are asserting that you have rebutted my counterexamples, yet you have not backed up your rebuttals with evidence. YOU had said:
"...virtually the only minorities who ducked the Yugoslav gun control laws were Croats who had been in the Yugoslav army and had weapons from there."

I asked you to prove that. You haven't.

Ah, the armed militias that WON the conflict, with arms, don't show that gun control was ineffective.

You continue to ignore the vast majority of unarmed people, many of whom were murdered. Gun control was very effective on them. Instead, you want to look at the few guerrillas armed from other countries.

Now you are begging the question. You look at cases of unarmed people that were murdered and conclude that they were murdered because they were unarmed. You see cases of people who had arms that were murdered too, and you conclude that you should ignore that evidence and maintain that only unarmed people are murdered in genocide. You are committing the fallacy of selective evidence.

Once more, the praxeologic argument. Please don't duck it again. Do you believe that people prefer more of a good to less?

DOUG
Your question so so vague as to be meaningless in advancing our argument.

People do not always prefer more of a good to less. Education, exercise, peace, etc. are examples of goods that the world population could use more of but chooses to have less than optimal levels of.

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.)

DOUG
Your argument is based on a false view of human nature.

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)

DOUG
Compare:
"A State's car control laws provides penalties (a bad) for violation. (def of car control law)
Thus, ceteris paribus, there will be a reduction in car ownership."

Do you see the U.S. lacking in car ownership? Thus you are refuted.

Barbara already gave you a counterexample with the Swiss. They have strict gun control laws and yet have a lot of gun ownership.

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.

DOUG
Oh, so now it is "facilitates"?

It doesn't "contribute" or "cause"? You overlook the fact that genocide is driven by hatred, and people who hate another group and want to kill them will often do so whether the other side is armed or not. We call these wars, and there are a lot of them.

Your argument doesn't hold up.

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

DOUG
And your law of human action is too vague to be of any use in this argument. What is the "good" in your assertion that people prefer more of a good to less, in relation to gun control laws? Your argument is ineffective at best.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

What I like about the Swiss gun control laws is that gun ownership is tied to training. Hogeye's "refutation" demonstrates it clearly - "game wardens," "members of recognized rifle associations," individuals "after 18" (without mentioning the prevalence of gun clubs for minors in Switzerland), individuals after retiring (relieved of duty) from the military/militia - all these people who can obtain or retain firearms without "permits" are trained in the proper care and safe use of weaponry. (FYI - Hogeye's quote doesn't include handguns, either, about which Switzerland is not only strict, it's getting stricter.) If America's rules for gun ownership were as stringent as Switzerland's we'd either have a whole lot more trained people (and a larger army) or a whole lot less gun ownership. Our permitting system is based on citizenship and alleged sanity (as in no legal evidence otherwise), not ability. Of all the arguments I've ever heard about the 2nd amendment and what it does or doesn't allow, I never hear the one I'm listening for - the 2nd amendment guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms to a TRAINED militia. You can argue all you want about what militia means (I prefer the definition in the Constitution, myself), but trained has got to mean something more than "I have a state-issued ID".

As to Hogeye's "praxeological law" - if it always followed "people preferred more of a good to less" then not only would those kids not be over in Iraq for what they consider to be good reasons to distrupt their lives, but women wouldn't have children (as a doctor once told me, being born is the most dangerous thing a person every does - giving birth is second) because kids are a physical and mental health hazard while in the womb and mental, emotional, and economic hazards for at least 15 years thereafter.

[Dardedar]

Darrel wrote:
To even get your claim in the ball game, you need countries with no gun control.

HOG
We merely need examples of relatively more and relatively less gun control.

DAR
So this is another huge problem for your claim. It all rides on a totally squishy, subjective, arbitrary and undefined "relatively more relatively less." Which is vulnerable to cherry picking and making up as you go.

So when asked to provide examples of countries with no gun control, you can only find two countries on the planet that you claim fall into some sort of vague "relatively less gun control" category. Since all other countries have "relatively more gun control" (whatever that means!), why would we not EXPECT a survey of countries that have experienced genocide, to also, by mere chance fall into the "relatively more gun control" category? Afterall, that apparently is the case for 99% of countries.

Most people would put the US and Switzerland in the latter category.

DAR
That's really funny. The NRA folks are always going on about how the US has 40,000 gun laws and gun control is too strict. And as I already quoted, gun propagandist John Lott says that Swiss gun laws are also very strict:

"Swiss concealed-handgun owners were required to have a permit and had to demonstrate to the authorities that they needed a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precise danger."

D.

[Dardedar]

"A young soldier and his AK-47 in southern Sudan. The boy is a member of the Justice and Equality Movement, a rebel group."

link

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

My son was telling me our military has a new "defensive weapon" - a robot that can pinpoint where a sniper shot came from based on the sound waves emitted by the shot and then either sends up a flare over the sniper's location or hits the sniper's location with a fireball. He said this works because the U.S. military is still using M-16s while the rest of the world is using AK-47s. Of course, that means we could also be taking out our "allies" (the few we have left over there), but hey, what's a little "friendly fire" between the "coalition of the willing". And the "collateral damage" of hitting a sniper post with a fireball is no more unfortunate if a robot does it than if a human does it. I'm hoping my son is incorrect - or at least the robot hasn't been deployed yet (and won't be until it can tell Brits or Iraqi "police" with AK-47s from bin Ladin's trainees with same).