>In response to Brett's perception that not having guns
>may have actually saved Hungarian lives: that was one
>of the reasons Mihaly was so bitter: even a rock got a
>bullet in return, and a Molotov a fusilade; he lost a
>very large number of friends that way; only a
>half-dozen of the boys from his neighborhood survived
>without scathe. The Soviet military were taking no
>chances.
This illustrates my point - a molotov cocktail drew heavier fire than a rock. It stands to reason that a gun would have drawn a fusilade too. If you raise the ante the other guy might follow suit instead of folding.
I suppose it is theoretically possible for an armed citizenry to act as a check on gov't power. It raises the cost of repression, no doubt.
But it can also evoke a nasty reaction, making the conflict more violent and bloody. The gov't will normally have greater firepower, and can almost always do as it wishes anyway (although the cost of implementing some kind of unpopular program will be increased). And this has to be factored into the equation. I can't think of one example where this kind of thing has really worked the way its advocates claim it should. More often than not, it just increases the bloodshed.
Take South Africa under Apartheid as an example. Had the blacks armed themselves and fought for their rights, does anyone doubt what the reaction would have been? It would have been swift and brutal. The death toll would have been much higher. It would have magnified the level of hatred on each side. It would have made a bad situation worse.
In fact, the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that this notion that guns will prevent gov't abuses is out to lunch. Has it diminished Israeli repression in the occupied territories? Has it driven Britain out of Northern Ireland? I can't think of a single success story.
Brett