Re Warsaw, you're right, in those specific conditions it would not have made a difference. But I have to say that if I'd been there, and faced the alternatives of fighting with a gun, fighting without a gun, and sitting there waiting to be dragged away, I'd much rather take the first alternative. Who wouldn't? And before Warsaw, before the Nazis came to official power, bands of Nazi youths used to roam the streets, beating Jews and destroying Jewish businesses. Effective resistance at this early stage might have woken some people up and changed things. We'll never know.
The circumstances of Warsaw are by no means universal. It is entirely possible for an armed citizenry to delay an attack long enough for other powers to intervene. In Warsaw nobody cared, but Governments now are keenly sensitive to domestic and foreign perceptions of events. It's a lot easier to come down on a population quietly if that population is unarmed. And in rural areas, there are numerous recent examples of determined groups armed mainly with light weapons bringing fully equipped military forces to a stalemate. Perhaps you recall Vietnam?
Using arms to resist a "government gone bad" is only one side of the coin. Governments can go bad, and they can also become ineffectual. If it ever reaches the point where gangs of skinheads run around looking for Jews or foreigners to bash, arms could be a key to a family's surviving until police arrive. If blacks had been armed, the KKK would have been a lot more hesitant come lynching-time.
My own belief? Anyone who wants to buy a gun should be required to pass a quite rigorous training course. Once passed, that person should not only be allowed, but required, to keep a weapon.
Steve |
