| > and I can't possibly believe they were for Polish Jews Well, maybe police all over the country discriminated against Jews when making each decision, I don't know, but no difference between non-Jewish and Jewish Poles regardin gun ownership law. Antisemitism in pre-war Poland was very different from that in Germany (antisemitic party was always second in elections, for example, ruling party and Piłsudski (the guy in charge) weren't antisemites, and even the antisemitic party never proposed killing Jews as a solution). But that's another subject (yes, there were a few laws discriminating agains Jews- the most famous is quota on places on university for Jews). > Our recent difficulties in the Middle East would seem to argue against your assertions. The difference in army budget between ME countries and USA is orders of magnitude. And still rebeliants needed help from regular army in many cases. > Guns are really useless against the agents of the state, no matter how expensive they make genocide or mass deportations or executions? I mean, does any state have an infinite supply of thugs? According to [1] the second country in the world by number of guns per citizen is Serbia. Incidentely - Serbia had genocide not that long ago. Third is Yemen, which also had genocide. Fourth is Switzerland, which, exactly like USA, wouldn't have problems with genocides even without mass weapon ownership. My conclusion is - in poor countries gun ownership don't prevent genocide. In rich countries genocides are prevented by government, and if government want to do genocide, guns won't help, cause government is rich. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co... |
Serbia et. al. was a long drawn out war; e.g. Srebrenica was sacked after a successful siege; this simply does not address my points.