12 May 2009

The sheer lunacy of anti-gun control freaks

I've always thought that anti-gun control freaks were a bit nuts, but this takes the cake. Hat-tip to Mark Stoneman's Clio and me.

FactCheck.org: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

The picture is utterly bizarre.

If dissidents in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany had had firearms and used them to resist arrest, most of them would have died sooner rather than later, and many more of them would have died.

If you want to avoid arrest in a totalitarian country, your best chance is to avoid or evade the police, not confront them, whether you are armed or not. And then try to skip across the border into a free(er) country, assuming there is one nearby.

I know something of this from personal experience.

Last week I got together with a friend, and we compared our police files from the apartheid era, which recently became available in the archives. We're planning to write an article on memoiries of a surveillance society, based on the contents of the files, and comparing the fantasies of the Security Police and the Department of Justice with reality.

In my file I discovered that the Minister of Justice had signed a banning order for me on 11 January 1966. I never received it, so I didn't know about it until I saw it in the file.

At the time I was working as a bus driver in Johannesburg, trying to save enough money to go and study overseas. On the afternoon of 18 January 1966, when I was about to go to work, I had a phone call from a Detective Sergeant van den Heever, asking if he could come and see me. I said I was about to go to work. He then asked if he could come and see me in the morning. I said I would be doing overtime in the morning, but said that I could go and see him between my overtime and my regular shift if he told me where I could find him.

I did not go to work, that afternoon, but went to see an Anglican priest friend, the student chaplain at the university, to tell him about this and ask his advice. We thought that Van den Heever would either be coming to confiscate my passport, or to give me a banning order, in which case I would not be able to study overseas. We decided that the wisest course would be to leave the country immediately.

So at 10:00 pm we set out for Beit Bridge and the Rhodesian border, which we crossed the next morning when the customs post opened at 6:00 am. The priest friend came to drive my mother's car back. My mother arranged with a travel agent in Johannesburg for me to collect a plane ticket at Bulawayo, and I got on a plane in Bulawayo, and arrived in London two days later, on 20 January 1966.

Now imagine what would have happened if I had done what the gun nut above suggested.

Detective Sergeant van den Heever comes to my door with the banning order, and I have a gun and shoot him.

The SB (Security Police) usually went in pairs, and so I'd have to be pretty quick to shoot his buddy as well before he either overpowered me or shot me.

We lived in a block of flats, and at that time of day people would be arriving home from work, so the incident would probably be witnessed by other residents who would undoubtedly call the police, even if they didn't know that the two bodies lying at the door of my flat were those of policemen in plain clothes.

So banning might be delayed, but arrest for a real crime would follow shortly. Then would follow a period of interrogation, with the possibility of slipping in the shower and falling through a 7th-floor window (defenestration). If that didn't happen there would be an appearance in court, an open and shut case of murder, followed by hanging.


One bloke who was banned tried to follow the path of armed resistance. Not with firearms; he took a suitcase full of explosives and took it to Johannesburg station. It killed an old lady and disfigured her granddaughter. His name was John Harris. He was hanged on 1 April 1965.

Or, of course, one could use firearms. Go to Norwood police station (where, if my banning order had been delivered, I would have had to report every Monday between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm) and make like Columbine High School -- shoot everyone in sight.

Ultimately, the result would be the same.

But the gun nuts who write stuff like that above are too stupid to see it.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps they would go into a school or a shopping mall and open fire on everyone in sight, and think that that would save them from the Gulag or whatever. Or they could join their likeminded buddies in the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

So instead of saying idiotic things like "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated", let the gun nuts say exactly how having legal firearms would have prevented them from being rounded up and exterminated.

And if they feel so strongly about it, perhaps they could strike a blow for freedom and smuggle arms to all the poor dissidents cooped up in Guantanamo Bay.


Bishop Alan Wilson said...

Steve, many thanks for a truly bizarre link, and moving personal testimony. My English master at School was one C. J. Driver, who had been banned as a student leader in SA in the mid sixties. My research supervisor was Peter Hinchliff, former professor of history at Rhodes, who likewise had got out in that era. Your experience was fascinating to read about. Many thanks.

Steve Hayes said...

Bishop Alan

Wow! I knew both Jonty Driver and Peter Hinchliff -- not very well, but we met at conferences etc.

Gus Gosling said...

Steve, I've wanted to ask you for sometime: how did rank and file members of the Liberal Party react to the Station bombing? in particular, once it became known that Liberal Party members — past and present — formed the nucleus of the NCL-ARM? Did they feel betrayed, or was there some understanding of their actions?

Mr Splodge said...

I believe gun control is inherently evil ~ the establishment of a 'political class' who decide who is allowed to use violence legitimately, and the nationalising self defense by the state, aiding and abetting the rapist and the thief (which is usually the state again). Gun control is the ultimate 'fuck you, little people, only we may decide', which is why it is often one of the very first acts of authoritarians everywhere ~ it invariably leads to confiscation. For this, I am a 'freak' who is a 'lunatic'

What other things am I not to be trusted with, as a lunatic and a freak? My own body? My mind? My speech? My choice of religion? All can have negative effects on society, after all.

You say 'Now imagine what would have happened if I had done what the gun nut above suggested.'. Another insult. He advocates fighting back ~ he is therefore a 'nut'. How about we imagine what would happen if every man and woman had resisted? But no, we must not do that. We should just run away, leave everyone else behind, unarmed, to be beaten and tortured at will, so that you may return at a later date and cheerlead for gun control and the 'right' of the state to have absolute power over the individual.

Which is kind of ironic, considering that is exactly what you ran away from. What do your preach at your church, that the Warsaw uprising was a really bad idea? That the Jews were right to not resist?

Heaven help me, people like you make me absolutely furious.

Sue said...

I agree with you entirely, Steve.

But can I be a little pedantic and suggest you remove the hyphen in the title and first sentence? I had to read them three times before I realised that you didn't mean to rant about control freaks who are anti-gun (which is how I read it at first, with some bewilderment) but freaks who are anti gun control.

Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty" -- Adolf Hitler.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Steve Hayes said...

Let me make one thing clear.

This post is not about gun control.
This post is not about gun control.
This post is not about gun control.

This post is about the stupid arguments used in the post I quoted.


Most Liberal Party members that I knew were rather shocked to learn of the activities of ARM. Most daid that they could understand their asctions, but could not not condone them.

Mr Splodge,

So do you think I should have shot Detective Sergeant van den Heever? Would that have assuaged your fury?

Magotty Man said...

Good post Steve. A lot of things sound "good" in theory, but break down when the practicalities are considered. But there is a nasty virus about, and it is not called H1N1. It is called Libertarianism....

I'm with you on your previously written opinions on these matters. Libertarianism, such as displayed by your quote, is essentially pelagian in nature - it ignores the sinfulness of man.

And here is the connection: The great modern semi-pelagian, Charles Finney, had a great influence over the subsequent flow of American religion, society and culture (and therefore politics). He influenced businessmen like Graham Kellog - who invented Graham Crackers as a weapon in the struggle against "file afflictions" caused, according to him and his ilk, by eating meat. He also had a sanitorium which was frequented by the rich and famous and influential (including at least 1 president) where they would restore health by a diet consisting exclusively of grapes, with daily enema's (!!!). The connection with no gun control? The belief that man can better himself, that he needs only conditioning to become perfect, that he is essentially good - thus, Libertarianism, thus our friend Splodge....

Of course, Mr Splodge, I'm a meat eating, man who is contemplating buying a hunting rifle. And I support sensible gun control. Like we have here in Canada.

Bird of Paradise said...

Just like these idiots who wants people to exchange their guns for rediculous gift cards,musical interments or flowers of $500 and certianly no crinimal is going to turn in their gun for a stupid tuba or a rose i mean GUN CONTROL HAS KILLED MANY INOCENT VICTIMS and we should repeal the GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES


Related Posts with Thumbnails