By Emiliano Antunez
For decades, many have pontificated on the evils of gun violence in the United States. Recently, Fareed Zakaria host of CNNs GPS (Global Public Square) on his show and in his Washington Post column took another shot at gun control (pun intended), pointing to the number of gun homicides in the U.S. and arguing for what he believes to be the obvious solution, stringent gun control (aka confiscation).
Fareed quoted the website shootingtracker.com (first time I’ve heard of it) as a source for some of his gun homicides statistics. I won’t dive into arguing whose statistics are right, but I will point out some very well documented historical facts that make it statistically clear that allowing private ownership of guns actually makes the “average” citizen safer and less likely to become a homicide statistic.
Mr. Zakaria points to the fact that Germany’s gun homicide rate is .07 per 100k as compared to 3.55 in the United States. I am glad Mr. Zakaria used Germany as an example, since just over 70 years ago its government executed the rarely disputed figure of 6 Million of its Jewish citizens, plus many more non-Jewish citizens. The one thing most of the German citizens, who were mercilessly massacred at the hands of the German government, had in common was that they were unarmed. Taking into account that Germany’s Population in 1940 was approximately 80 Million, and assuming most of the 6 Million murders took place over a 4 year period, the US would need over 6 million gun homicides annually to equal the devastation perpetrated by the German government on its citizens.
Joseph Stalin (Uncle Joe to FDR) used the power of the well-armed Russian state to force millions of Kulaks in the Ukraine from their farms (Collectivization I believe is the PC term), causing a massive famine. At the height of the famine in 1933, 25,000 Ukrainians a day were dropping dead. The most accepted death toll from the famine, which was interrupted in 1941 by Hitler’s invasion of Russia, and which did not necessarily resolve the problems for the Kulaks, was 7 Million. That is almost 1 Million people per year dying at the hands of a Russian state – and again they were in great part unarmed civilians.
Guns aren’t even necessary to commit mass murder or genocide (nor are European tyrants). In 1994 in Rwanda, during a period of about 100 days, the majority Hutu population murdered an estimated 500,000 Tutsis (some estimates are as high as 1 Million). Conservatively, (no pun intended) that is a rate of 5,000 people a day killed mostly with machete’s or blunt objects. The murders were made possible because the Hutu dominated government of Rwanda complicity turned a blind eye to the genocide. Needless to say most of the Tutsis were also unarmed patsy’s.
Murder and genocide should not be the only litmus test for private gun ownership. General well being, defense of family and private property should also be taken into account. In 1959, in my parents native Cuba, Fidel Castro came to power using a well-armed rebel group composed mostly of (armed) private citizens. Being well aware of that fact once he took power, Fidel Castro (the pied piper of Havana) immediately instituted the campaign “Armas Para Que” which translates roughly to What Do You Need Guns for (The Cuban people found out “what for” but it was too late), and the government confiscated most of the guns from Cuba’s private citizens. The result was the summary execution of thousands, the confiscation of all private property and the forced exile of over a million Cubans.
Let us not forget the thousands that have perished at sea fleeing the communist island prison. The effects on the general population of the United States due to private gun ownership pale in comparison. I could go on and on (Pol Pot, Mao, Chavez, ISIS and Assad etc) but I have a point to make.
There is also that pesky thing called reality. The reality is that there are more than 300 Million guns in private hands in the United States. If many are arguing (me being one of them) that detecting and forcibly deporting 11 million plus illegal aliens would turn the U.S. into a police state, what would the detection and confiscation of over 300 million guns do? Would it be possible? In the end it is easy to argue that the “un-confiscated” guns would end up in the hands of criminals who aren’t in the habit of obeying laws.
To be fair, every death – especially violent ones – are a tragedy. None should ever be taken lightly and un- biased reasoning and common sense should be used to prevent them. We must all keep in mind that complete security does not exist, it is merely an illusion. Giving up your gun(s) will not make you safer; it will simply put your safety (or lack thereof) in the hands of and at the mercy of others.
I sometimes enjoy Mr. Zakaria’s erudite observations like the one he made a week prior on the Iran Nuclear Deal. He stated that it (the deal) was not perfect, or everything some in the US, the Arab World or Israel wanted, but realistically, and taking everything into account, it was the best that we could hope for at the present time. I personally agree with that assessment for the most part, I only wish Mr. Zakaria would use the same deep insight, analysis and reasoning when it came to his comments on US gun laws.
Mama’s Note: A person who uses falsehoods and lies to manipulate people is a liar and a fraud. A person known to lie and manipulate people cannot be trusted at other times to tell the truth. Mr. Zakaria is very welcome to his opinions, of course, but the lies tell the tale of his character.
The “deal” with Iran is just another US government gun grabber scheme, only on an international scale instead of individual. By what authority does the US presume to dictate anything to Iran (or anyone else)? To threaten and manipulate other countries because of what they “might” do is exactly what is being done to innocent gun owners everywhere. Gun owners shouldn’t get suckered by this fraud.
If Iran should attack us (very doubtful), the US would be right to defend its territory, but other than that there is zero legitimate reason to attempt to control them, and certainly none to attack them.