{"id":76669,"date":"2022-01-29T01:59:02","date_gmt":"2022-01-29T07:59:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?page_id=76669"},"modified":"2024-05-04T13:22:44","modified_gmt":"2024-05-04T18:22:44","slug":"guns-kill-people-and-tyrants-with-gun-monopolies-kill-the-most","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?page_id=76669","title":{"rendered":"Guns Kill People, and Tyrants with Gun Monopolies Kill the Most"},"content":{"rendered":"

Guns Kill People, and Tyrants with Gun Monopolies Kill the Most<\/a><\/p>\n

What are the relative risks of a nation having too many guns compared to the risks
\nof the nation having too few guns?
\nComparing and contrasting Europe and the United
\nStates during the twentieth century, the article finds that the United States might have
\nsuffered up to three-quarters of million excess firearms homicide over the course of the
\ncentury\u2014based on certain assumptions made to maximize the highest possible figure.<\/p>\n

In contrast, during the twentieth century Europe suffered 87 million excess homicides
\nagainst civilians by mass-murdering tyrannical governments. The article suggests
\nthat Americans should not be complacent that they have some perpetual immunity to
\nbeing subjected to tyranny. The historical record shows that governments planning
\nmass murder work assiduously to disarm their intended victims. While victim
\nresistance cannot necessarily overthrow a tyrannical regime, resistance does save
\nmany lives.<\/p>\n

This Article compares the relative dangers of excessive gun ownership and of excessive gun control based on the historical record of the twentieth century. Part I describes tensions in some treaties, declarations, and other legal documents from the United Nations and the European Union. On the one hand, they recognize the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny and genocide; on the other hand, the UN and EU gun control programs seem to make armed resistance nearly impossible.<\/p>\n

Part II contrasts homicide data for the United States and Europe during the twentieth century. First, data about homicides from ordinary crimes are examined. Based on certain assumptions that bias the figure upward, if the U.S. had the same gun homicide rate as Europe\u2019s, there might have been three-quarters of a million fewer deaths in America during the twentieth century. The figure is a data point for the dangers of insufficient gun control.<\/p>\n

Next, Part II looks more broadly at homicide, to include homicides perpetrated by governments, such as the Hitler or Stalin regimes. In Europe in the twentieth century, states murdered about 87.1 million people. Globally, governments murdered well over 200 million people. The figure does not include combat deaths from wars.<\/p>\n

As Part III explains, totalitarian governments are the most likely to perpetrate mass murder. The Part argues against the complacent belief that any nation, including the United States, is immune from the dangers of being taken over by a murderous government. The historical record shows that risks are very broad.<\/p>\n

Part IV shows that governments intent on mass murder prioritize victim disarmament because they consider it to a serious impediment to mass murder and tyrannical rule.<\/p>\n

Finally, Part V examines the efficacy of citizen arms against mass murdering governments. Citizen arms are most effective as deterrents. However, even without changing the regime, the twentieth century shows that armed resistance can accomplish a great deal and save many lives. The Conclusion suggests that the UN and EU adopt a more balanced gun control policy, recognizing the value of citizen arms in protecting the public from tyranny and mass murder.<\/p>\n

BLUF:<\/p>\n

It is agreed by the United Nations and the European Union that genocide must be
\nthwarted and prevented, and tyranny resisted. Yet the UN and EU gun control
\nprograms fail to account for life-saving benefits of arms in preventing or resisting
\ntyranny and genocide. Further, the EU and UN gun control programs create central
\nregistration lists, which facilitate gun confiscation by tyrants and genocidaires. The
\nhistorical record shows that no nation should imagine itself permanently immune
\nfrom the dangers of totalitarianism. Because the death toll inflicted on disarmed
\npopulations is vastly greater than deaths from (allegedly) insufficient gun control, as
\nin the United States, the EU and the UN should adopt a more balanced approach.
\nWhile working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the UN and EU should also
\nrecognize the long-term public safety benefits\u2014namely, reducing mass murder by
\ngovernment\u2014of widespread citizen arms possession.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I. CONTRADICTIONS IN UN AND EU POLICIES
\nA. Human Rights and Anti-Genocide Treaties and Declarations
\nThe United Nations and the European Union have formally recognized that people must
\ndefend themselves, including against tyrannical or genocidal governments. In 1948, the UN
\nGeneral Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
\nWhereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to
\nrebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the
\nrule of law\u2026.
\n1 The UN\u2019s declaration was not a novelty. According to France\u2019s 1789 Declaration of the Rights
\nof Man: \u201cThe aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible
\nrights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.\u201d
\n2Shortly before adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the General Assembly
\nadopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
\n3 While the Universal Declaration is a statement of principles, the Genocide Convention is binding
\ninternational law among nations that adopt it. The Genocide Convention established two distinct
\nlegal duties: to prevent genocide, and to punish genocide.
\n4 Because genocide is illegal, a person
\n1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, at pmbl., U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 1st plen. mtg., U.N.
\nDoc A\/810 (Dec. 12, 1948).
\n2 National Assembly of France, Declaration of the Rights of Man art. 2 (Aug. 26, 1789).
\n3 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide art. 1, opened for signature Dec. 9, 1948,
\n102 Stat. 3045, 78 U.N.T.S. 277 [hereinafter Genocide Convention]. 4 See, e.g, Application of the Convention of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugo. (Serb. & Mont.)), 1993
\nI.C.J. 325, 443-44 (Sept. 13) (separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht); Application of the Convention on the
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n3 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nor group who is being targeted for genocide has no legal obligation to cooperate with illegal acts
\nand may resist. Or so I have argued.
\n5 All the nations that belong to the European Union have ratified the Genocide Convention, as
\nhas the United States.6 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes the
\nlegitimacy of lethal force in defense of oneself or another person against unlawful violence:
\nEveryone\u2019s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of
\nhis life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his
\nconviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
\nDeprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this
\narticle when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
\nnecessary:
\n(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
\n(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully
\ndetained;
\n(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.7
\nThe ECHR\u2019s language is not limited to defense against attempted homicide. Lethal
\nforce may be used against \u201cunlawful violence\u201d\u2014such as attempted rape, mayhem, or
\nrobbery. The ECHR does not limit who defensive force may be used against. The
\nlanguage applies equally to a rapist in a parking garage or to government official
\nherding people onto trains to send them to a slave labor camp.8
\nB. UN and European Gun Control
\nTwenty-three UN entities are now involved in gun control.9 One pillar of the UN\u2019s gun
\ncontrol work is the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in
\nSmall Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, adopted at a July 2001 conference.
\n10 Nothing
\nin the PoA acknowledges any legitimacy for firearms possession by citizens. The PoA is not
\nlegally binding, even among signatories.
\nIn 2013 the UN General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
\n11 The ATT
\npreamble declares the ATT to be \u201cmindful of\u201d the legitimate use of firearms for \u201crecreational,
\nPrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugo. (Serb. & Mont.), 2001 I.C.J. 572
\n(Sept. 10).
\n5 See David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right? 81 NOTRE DAME L.
\nREV. 1275 (2006). 6 The UN\u2019s official list of ratifying nations is available at
\nhttps:\/\/treaties.un.org\/Pages\/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&clang=_en. 7 European Convention on Human Rights, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 2.
\n8 For case law and scholarship on ECHR article 2, see T. MARKUS FUNK, RETHINKING SELF-DEFENCE: THE
\n\u2018ANCIENT RIGHTS\u201d RATIONALE DISENTANGLED 120-23 (2021). 9 They are coordinated by the UN\u2019s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA). See United Nations, Office for
\nDisarmament Affairs, UN launches new International Small Arms Control Standards, Aug. 29, 2012. 10 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All
\nIts Aspects, UN doc. A\/CONF.192\/15. https:\/\/www.un.org\/events\/smallarms2006\/pdf\/192.15%20(E).pdf.
\n\u201cProgram\u201d is spelled \u201cprogramme\u201d because the UN, like most of the world, adheres to British spelling.
\n11 Arms Trade Treaty, Sept. 25, 2013, 3012 U.N.T.S. 52373.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 4
\ncultural, historical, and sporting activities, where. . .permitted or protected by law.\u201d12 Defensive
\ngun ownership is not acknowledged.13 As a treaty, the ATT is legally binding for nations that
\nhave ratified.
\nThe PoA titles itself to be about \u201cIllicit Trade.\u201d The \u201cArms Trade Treaty\u201d sets conditions for
\nlawful trade. Based on the names, one might think that neither would have much to do with
\npossession of firearms by citizens wholly within a nation. The texts of the PoA and ATT have
\nmuch ambiguous language that can be interpreted in favor of domestic gun control, but the
\ndocuments set no standards.
\nThe UN, however, has created model rules for domestic gun control: the International Small
\nArms Control Standards (ISACS).14 Although ISACS do not in themselves have the force of law,
\nthe UN states that they are how the ATT and PoA should be implemented.15 In Europe, ISACS is
\nimplemented by European Firearms Directives, which are issued by the European Council and
\nEuropean Parliament.
\n16 The directives require EU national governments to enact many specific
\nrestrictive laws. Among them:
\n\u2022 \u201cFirearms and their ammunition shall not be readily accessible together.\u201d17
\n\u2022 \u201cMember States shall ensure that all firearms may be linked to their owner at any
\nmoment.\u201d18
\nThe above provisions impair self-defense in two ways. First, by making home defense
\nimpossible in a sudden emergency, with gun and ammunition stored separately.
\nSecond, by making it easy for a dictatorial government to confiscate guns, so as to prevent
\nresistance to tyranny or genocide.
\nAccording to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention,
\ntyranny and genocide must be prevented and resisted. The two documents proclaim high
\nprinciples, while gun control initiatives such as ISACS also aim for a high principle: saving
\nlives. As gun control advocates point out, gun homicide rates in the United States are higher than
\nin Europe. Gun control laws in the United States are and long have been less restrictive than in
\nEurope.
\nWhat are the relative dangers of having too many guns (as arguably in America) compared to
\nhaving too little armed self-defense (as arguably in Europe)? The next Part of this Article
\nconsiders data over the course of the twentieth century.
\n12 Id. pmbl. 13 Id. 14 See National regulation of civilian access to small arms and light weapons, ISACS 03.30 (June 11, 2015).
\nhttps:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/Documents\/Issues\/RuleOfLaw\/CivilianAcquisition\/UNAgencies_IO\/International%20Small
\n%20Arms%20Control%20Standards%20Inter-Agency%20Support%20Unit.pdf. 15 https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190408124741\/http:\/\/www.smallarmsstandards.org\/about-isacs.html. 16 EU 2017\/853 (May 17, 2017). The order also applies to the non-EU states of Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and
\nLiechtenstein, because they are part of the Schengen Area, a zone that allows international travel within Europe
\nwithout border checks. Id. at pmbl. (35)-(37). 17 Id. art. art. 5a. 18 Id. art 4, para. 5.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n5 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24<\/p>\n

II. THE SCOPE OF THE HOMICIDE PROBLEM
\nOne way to compare the different risks of different policies is to consider long-term
\nhomicide totals. What if U.S. gun homicide rates in the twentieth century had been
\nas low as European gun homicide rates in that century? The largest global dataset
\nfor firearms homicide was published by the Journal of the American Medical
\nAssociation (JAMA) in 2018.19 The relevant data, for 1990 to 2016, are online in
\nsupplemental eTable9.20 Using the twentieth-century data, 1990 to 2000, the average
\nadjusted U.S. homicide rate was 5.06 per 100,000 population. The average in Western
\nEurope was 0.46, and in Eastern Europe 2.24, yielding a European average of 1.35.
\nThe difference between 5.06 is 3.71. In other there were 3.71 more gun homicides
\nannually in the United States, per 100,000 population.21 If instead of using the 1990-
\n2000, we use only the data year with highest U.S. gun homicide rate, the year 1990,
\nthe U.S.-Europe difference is 4.65.22 Stated another way, in 1990 there were 465 more
\ngun homicides per ten million population than in Europe. Extrapolate the 1990 rate
\nfor the U.S. population from 1901 to 2000: over the century, there were 745,162 more
\ngun homicides in American than there would have been if the U.S. had the European rate
\nof gun homicide.23
\nIt could be pointed out that some firearms homicides are justifiable. For example,
\na citizen or a police officer shoots someone who is about to kill them. But assume
\nthere were no justifiable homicides. It could also be pointed out that if a firearm were
\nnot available, the criminal might have used another means to kill. For example, in a
\ndomestic homicide, there are many ways for a big man to kill a small woman,
\nincluding knives or hands. Assume that the substitution rate would have been zero.
\nIn other words, assume that every one of the 745,000 excess U.S. gun homicides would
\nnot have been a homicide if the United States had adopted European-style gun
\ncontrol.
\nAn objection to the 745,000 figure is that it ignores the crime-preventive effect of
\nfirearms ownership. About three-quarters of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not even
\n19 M. Naghavi et al., Global Mortality from Firearms, 1990-2016, 320 JAMA 792 (2018). 20
\nhttps:\/\/cdn.jamanetwork.com\/ama\/content_public\/journal\/jama\/937477\/joi180081supp1_prod.pdf?Expires=2147483
\n647&Signature=hy3pL4E76UduKURDQHYTBbcopYMhvZO8ylQNPz9R2AQW9VbMnpwZ0K0VNO7kVJx8RR
\n0JRFBLLvggr-Z8ggTKqkeSanb1OPd7A7I92APmKerRowlNI4oNWglZV7qQxAtQKzOsnflEPWe92NjF2agkaQCe1j9Ri0M3-pAVMVjbXBhhE3ROlXoSxnBTYBGiB6ldy6tbF8Sr0TFVWJsn~Ka9eV19rwMSkvH~M3j3MmjSu946wP~BazW0ZEjiadX4kBcfQaxHnqFA98UJRrWHnRHGZYRQ6UqIZmnUqn70u~TVN0UVEpRoblnu5erb
\nf-cdzIO5ZtcaOSLsxojyAFAP0Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA 21 Table E9 presents the age-adjusted data are presented in five-year intervals. For the U.S.: 5.57 in 1990, 5.27 in
\n1995, 4.33 in 2000. Average is 5.06. The Western Europe figures for the same years are 0.53, 0.46, and 0.38;
\naverage is 0.46. The Eastern European figures are 1.31, 3, and 2.44; average is 2.24. Decade average of Western and
\nEastern Europe (weighting each equally) is 1.35. Thus, the 1990 to 2000 decade-long annual average difference
\nbetween the U.S. and Europe is 5.06 minus 1.35 = 4.71.
\n22 See previous note. 23 Of course, it would be ideal if the JAMA data started in 1901, rather than in 1990. For simplicity, the calculations
\nassume a straight linear increase for U.S. population between one decennial census and the next.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 6
\ninvolve a shot being fired; the mere display of a defensive firearm is sufficient for the
\ncriminal to decide to desist.24 Substantial research indicates that the number of
\nDGUs in the United States annually is at least several hundred thousand, and
\nperhaps over a million.25 On the other hand, data from a federal survey that does not
\nask respondents about defensive gun use, but does allow them to voluntarily bring it
\nup, yields a DGU figure around a hundred thousand.26 Assume that the number of
\nDGUs is zero.
\nBy making the above assumptions, we keep the 745,000 figure intact. It is a
\nnumber that is certainly too high, and therefore it is not an underestimate. So with
\ncertain assumption, the failure of the United States to adopt European gun control
\nwas responsible for about three-quarters of a million excess deaths in the United
\nStates in the twentieth century.
\nSeven hundred and forty-five thousand is a very large number. It is, however, a
\nmuch smaller number, by more than two orders of magnitude, than the number of
\nEuropeans killed by their governments in the twentieth century. Homicide statistics,
\nsuch as those in the JAMA article, usually only count murders by individuals or small
\ngroups. Serial killers or mass shooters may murder several dozen people. Arsonists
\nor bombers, even more. Yet in the aggregate, individual criminals, small gangs, or
\norganized crime syndicates\u2014all combined\u2014perpetrate vastly less homicide than do
\ncriminal governments.
\nAfter all, government exists because it is a means to organize large numbers of
\npeople for collective action. Government can take on huge projects, such as building
\nthousands of miles of interstate highways, or operating schools for millions of
\nstudents. The same ability to operate at large scale means that when a government
\ndecides to murder millions of people, it can. An individual or a group of individuals
\nwho would like to murder millions has no practical means to do so. But a national
\nruler who decides to murder millions often does have the means. If you are counting
\nmurders, and you don\u2019t count murder by government, you have missed most of the
\n24 See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a
\nGun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, 175 (1995) (76 percent). 25 The Kleck & Gertz survey found 2.2 to 2.5 million annually. Id. at 162. Replication, with some modifications, by
\nPhilip Cook and Jen Ludwig yielded a figure of 1.46 million. Philip Cook & Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: Results
\nof a Comprehensive National Survey of Firearms Ownership and Use 62-63 (1996). Cook and Ludwig argued that
\ntheir own study produced implausibly high numbers, and they adopted the novel (for them) position that it was
\nimpossible to accurately measure DGUs. Id. at 68-75. For a response, see Gary Kleck, Has the Gun Deterrence
\nHypothesis Been Discredited?, 10 J. Firearms & Pub. Pol’y 65 (1998). Unbeknownst to almost everyone in the late
\n1990s, the Centers for Disease Control conducted its own DGU study. The results indicate likely more than one
\nmillion DGUs annually. The study was never released and was kept secret until decades later, when someone
\nleaked it. The CDC denied that it had suppressed its own research; rather CDC said that it was still working the data
\nanalysis and would release the study when the internal work was finished. See Brian Doherty, A Second Look at a
\nControversial Study About Defensive Gun Use, Reason.com (Sept. 4, 2018). As of 2021, that internal review
\napparently remains a low priority. Since all three studies were conducted in the 1990s, when crime was higher than
\ntoday, estimates for current DGUs should be adjusted proportionately; if crime is about 50 percent less today, than
\nannual DGUs would also presumably be about 50 percent lower.
\n26 See Jacob Sullum, A Survey Not Designed to Measure Defensive Gun Use Finds Little of It, Reason.com (Sept. 7,
\n2015).
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n7 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nmurders. An intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder,
\nwhether the murderer is an individual or a large organization, such as a government.
\nWhat is the size of murder by government? Comprehensive data were assembled
\nby University of Hawaii political science professor Rudolph J. Rummel. He wrote one
\nbook on each of the three most lethal regimes of the twentieth century: Communist
\nChina, the Soviet Union, and National Socialist Germany.27 Then he wrote another
\nbook covering the 15 most lethal regimes.28 Finally, he gathered data from all other
\nnations, combined them with the nations he had already studied, and published
\nStatistics of Democide in 1998.29 He continued to refine the data on his University of
\nHawaii website, Power Kills.30 Although Professor Rummel has passed away, the
\nwebsite is still available to the public.
\nBefore examining the data, some caveats should be mentioned. First, Professor
\nRummel only gathered data for 1900 to 1987. As he acknowledges, \u201cpost-1987
\ndemocides by Iraq, Iran, Burundi, Serbian and Bosnian Serbs, Bosnia, Croatia,
\nSudan, Somalia, the Khmer Rouge guerrillas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and others\u201d are
\nnot included in his data.31
\nSecond, Rummel\u2019s data undercount death by government because they do not
\ninclude battlefield deaths. So for example, the death figure for the Nazi regime in
\nGermany does not include the millions of soldiers who died on battlefields all over
\nEurope in a war started by that regime. Rummel does include military killings in
\nviolation of the Geneva Conventions, such as \u201cthe intentional bombing of a hospital,
\nshooting of captured POWs, using civilians for target practice, shelling a refugee
\ncolumn, indiscriminate bombing of a village, and the like.\u201d32
\nThird, Rummel\u2019s figures are not about \u201cgenocide,\u201d as defined in the Genocide
\nConvention, but rather about what he calls \u201cdemocide.\u201d Not all of mass murders by
\ngovernment are \u201cgenocide\u201d in the narrowest legal sense. At the insistence of the
\nSoviet Union, the Genocide Convention only addressed \u201cacts committed with intent
\nto destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
\nsuch.\u201d33 Thus, mass killings of economic classes or political dissenters are not
\n\u201cgenocide,\u201d according to the Genocide Convention. The definition omits many mass
\nkillings by government, including by Stalin\u2019s regime. He killed millions of Ukrainian
\nfarmers not because of their ethnicity, but because they wanted to owned small plots
\nof land rather than laboring as modern serfs on state farms.34
\nAccordingly, Professor Rummel coined the word \u201cdemocide\u201d to denote all mass
\nmurder by government, regardless of whether the victims were selected for ethnicity,
\n27 R.J. RUMMEL, CHINA\u2019S BLOODY CENTURY: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER SINCE 1900 (2017) (1991); R.J.
\nRUMMEL, LETHAL POLITICS: SOVIET GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER SINCE 1917 (1990); R.J. RUMMEL, DEMOCIDE:
\nNAZI GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER (1991). 28 R.J. RUMMEL, DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER SINCE 1900 (2017) (1994). 29 R.J. RUMMEL, STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER SINCE 1900 (1998). 30 https:\/\/www.hawaii.edu\/powerkills\/PERSONAL.HTM 31 RUMMEL, DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, supra, at xxi. 32 RUMMEL, POWER KILLS: DEMOCRACY AS A METHOD OF NONVIOLENCE 98 (2017) (1997). 33 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide art. 2 (1949). 34 See, e.g., ROBERT CONQUEST, THE HARVEST OF SORROW: SOVIET COLLECTIVIZATION AND THE TERROR-FAMINE
\n(1986).
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 8
\npolitics, economics, or other reasons. This Article uses \u201cdemocide\u201d and \u201cmass murder\u201d
\nas equivalent terms.
\nFor each nation, Professor Rummel described the sources that have estimated
\nparticular killings. He then offered his own \u201cprudent or conservative mid-range
\nestimate, which is based on my reading of the events involved, the nature of the
\ndifferent estimates, and the estimates of professionals who have long studied the
\ncountry or government involved.\u201d35 He cautioned that his estimates should \u201cbe viewed
\nas rough approximations \u2014 as suggestive of an order of magnitude.\u201d He expected that
\nfuture scholars would arrive at new estimates based on further research.36
\nTables 1 through 3 present some of Rummel\u2019s data. Table 1 lists the 15 deadliest
\nregimes of the century. Table 2 covers some major European democides that were not
\nlarge enough to be listed in the global top-15. Table 3 lists some other 1900-87
\ndemocides on other continents. All the data below are from Rummel, except, as
\nindicated in the text following Table 3, for China and Cambodia.
\nTABLE 1
\nMega-Murders\u2014Over 1 Million Victims
\nRegime Years Democide
\n(000,000s)
\nSummary
\nDekamurders (over 10 million victims)
\nPeople\u2019s
\nPublic of
\nChina
\n1949-87 87.6 Mao et al. communist regime. Does not
\ninclude 3.5 million murders by Chinese
\ncommunists during the 1927-49 civil war.
\nUnion of
\nSoviet
\nSocialist
\nRepublics
\n1917-87 61.9 Communist regime. Includes 54.8 million
\nwithin the Soviet Union, plus 6.9 million
\nin areas conquered by the USSR. Josef
\nStalin\u2019s rule (1929-53) accounts for 43
\nmillion. On an annualized basis, the preStalin regime founded by Lenin was more
\nmurderous than the post-Stalin one.
\nGermany 1933-45 20.9 National Socialist German Workers Party
\n(Nazi). Includes Hitler regime\u2019s murders
\nthroughout occupied Europe. Does not
\ninclude WWII battle deaths.
\nChina 1928-49 10.1 Kuomintang party.
\nMegamurders (over 1 million victims)
\nJapan 1936-45 6.0 Military dictatorship. Principally, war
\ncrimes perpetrated by the Japanese army
\n35 RUMMEL, POWER KILLS, supra, at xix. 36 Id. at xvii.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n9 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nagainst civilians in occupied nations, such
\nas China or the Philippines.
\nChina 1923-49 3.5 Communist revolutionary army before
\nvictory in 1949.
\nCambodia 1975-79 1.5 Khmer Rouge communist regime. Per
\ncapita, the largest democide against a
\ndomestic population. Includes murders of
\nethnic minorities, intellectuals, and
\ndissidents, plus deaths from slave labor.
\nTurkey 1909-18 1.9 Young Turks regime.
\nMilitary dictatorship killings of Armenians
\nand other Christians.
\nVietnam 1945-87 1.7 Communist regime. Includes 1.1 million in
\nVietnam and 0.6 million in Laos and
\nCambodia. Does not include battle
\ndeaths.
\nPoland 1945-48 1.6 Communist regime, post-WWII. Ethnic
\ncleansing of German population,
\nincluding in former German areas given
\nto Poland after the war. Deaths mainly
\nfrom subhuman conditions of deportation.
\nPakistan 1970-71 1.5 Islamist military dictatorship. A 267-day
\nmilitary attack by West Pakistan on East
\nPakistan (which is now the independent
\nnation of Bangladesh). The attacks were
\nended by Indian military intervention.
\nThe figure does not include battle deaths.
\nYugoslavia 1944-63 1.1 Josip Broz Tito communist dictatorship.
\nMass killings of ethnic groups and noncommunists in 1944-46, plus deaths in
\nslave labor camps through 1963.
\nSuspected megamurders (data are less certain, so estimates are rougher)
\nNorth Korea 1948-87 1.7 Sung family\u2019s communist absolute
\nmonarchy. Includes killings of prisoners
\nof war and civilian South Koreans during
\nthe Korean War (1950-53).
\nMexico 1900-20 1.4 Porfiro D\u00edaz authoritarian regime till 1911;
\nrevolutionary regimes and warlords
\nthereafter. Deaths of Indians and peons
\non slave labor haciendas, plus massacres
\nof civilians and conscription into slave
\nlabor by various forces in the civil wars of
\n1911-20.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 10
\nRussia 1900-17 1.1 Czarist regime. Includes about 0.5 million
\nfrom Russian Empire Armenian
\nirregulars slaughtering Kurds in Turkey
\nin WWI, in reprisal for genocide of
\nArmenians in Turkey. Most of the rest
\nfrom deaths of prisoners of war in WWI.
\nSome from Jewish pogroms.
\nTotal: 203.5 million
\nTABLE 2
\nNext-Largest European Domestic Mass Murders
\nRegime Years Democide (0s) Summary
\nAlbania 1944-87 100,000 Communist. Ultra-totalitarian regime
\nof Enver Hoxha.
\nBalkan
\nChristians
\n1912-13 10,000 Targeted by various governments.
\nBulgaria 1944-87 222,000 Communist.
\nCzechoslovakia 1945-48 197,000 Coalition government including
\ndemocrats and communists.
\nPrimarily reprisals and ethnic
\ncleansing of German-speaking
\npopulation.
\nEast Germany 1945-87 70,000 Communist.
\nHungary 1919-44 138,000 Authoritarian.
\nIncludes 79,000 in Yugoslavia in areas
\ntemporarily annexed by Hungary in
\nWWII.
\nRumania 1941-87 919,000 Fascist then communist after 1944.
\nSpain 1936-75 452,000 Fascist Francisco Franco dictatorship.
\nMutual democide of 202,000 by Fascists
\nand Republicans during Civil War.
\n250,000 by Franco thereafter.
\nTotal: 2,108,000
\nTABLE 3
\nSelected Centi-Kilomurders (over 100,000)
\nRegime Years Democide Summary
\nAfghanistan 1978-87 483,000 Does not include battle deaths. Includes
\ndemocides by pre-1979 regime, by the regime
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n11 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\ninstalled in 1979 by Soviet coup, by Soviet
\nUnion, and by other forces.
\nAngola 1975-87 125,000 By communist regime following independence
\nfrom Portugal.
\nBurundi 1964-87 175,000 Tutsis vs. Hutus.
\nChina 1917-49 910,000 Warlords. Independent warlord regimes not
\nunder the control of the Republic of China
\nor of the communist revolutionaries.37
\nEthiopia 1941-74 148,000 Haile Selassie monarchy.
\nEthiopia 1974-87 725,000 Communist.
\nGuatemala 1956-87 122,000 Military.
\nIndonesia 1965-66 509,000 Killings of communists by the military, the
\nselect militia, and others following a failed
\ncommunist coup attempt.
\nIndonesia 1965-87 729,000 Against East Timor secessionists.
\nIraq 1968-87 187,000 Ba\u2019ath party.
\nMongolia 1916-87 100,000 Communist.
\nMozambique 1975-87 323,000 198,000 by communist regime after 1975
\nindependence from Portugal. Remainder by
\nopposition RENAMO forces (Resist\u00eancia
\nNacional Mo\u00e7ambicana).
\nNigeria 1967-70 777,000 By government and Biafran forces during
\nBiafra\u2019s failed war of independence.
\nSudan 1956-87 627,000 Islamist military dictatorship. Against
\nvarious ethnic or racial minorities.
\nTurkey 1919-23 878,000 Atat\u00fcrk regime. Post-WWI attacks on
\nArmenians and other minorities.
\nUganda 1971-79 300,000 Idi Amin military regime. Mainly against
\nminority tribes and Ugandans of Asian
\ndescent.
\nUganda 1979-87 255,000 Post-Amin regimes.
\nTotal: 7,373,000
\nSources: Except as noted below, the figures in the above tables are from R.J. Rummel, Death by
\nGovernment: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (2017) (1994) and R.J. Rummel, Statistics of
\nDemocide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (1998). The data are also on Professor Rummel\u2019s
\nUniversity of Hawaii website, Power Kills, which in some cases adjusts the estimates slightly.
\nThe figures differ from Rummel for two nations. For Cambodia, Rummel estimated 2 million
\ndeaths. Later research suggests 1.5 million. See BEN KIERNAN, THE POL POT REGIME: RACE, POWER,
\nAND GENOCIDE IN CAMBODIA UNDER THE KHMER ROUGE, 1975-79, at 456-65 (3d ed. 2008). The
\nCommunist China total is detailed in David B. Kopel, The Party Commands the Gun: Mao Zedong\u2019s
\nArms Policies and Mass Killing, in chapter 19.C of NICHOLAS J. JOHNSON, DAVID B. KOPEL, GEORGE A.
\n37 Estimate from Rummel, Power Kills; higher than the estimate in his earlier book China\u2019s Bloody Century.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 12
\nMOCSARY, AND E. GREGORY WALLACE, FIREARMS LAW AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: REGULATION,
\nRIGHTS, AND POLICY (3d ed. 2021).
\nThe democide figures in Table 1 showed about 203.5 total democides by the 15
\nregimes that each killed over a million people. The other democides listed in Tables
\n2 and 3 bring the global total to around 213 million, for 1900 to 1987. How many of
\nthose were killed in Europe? (Again, not including battlefield deaths). Just adding up
\nthe total for each European country would produce a figure that is too high, since the
\nSoviet Union and Turkey include European and Asian territory. All the Turkish mass
\nmurder is omitted from the European total, since only a small part of Turkish
\nterritory is European, and since most of the Turkish mass murder was perpetrated
\nagainst Armenians and other Christians in Asian Turkey.
\nAs for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the regime murdered about 5.6
\nmillion Eastern Europeans. The rest of its mass murders were within the USSR.
\nBased on population distribution as of 1940, about 73 percent of the Soviet population
\nlived in Europe, and so 73% of the Soviet regime\u2019s murders are attributed to the
\nEuropean regions of the USSR.38
\nThe Soviet European democide is thus 41.1 million internally plus 5.6 million in
\nEastern Europe. The preceding Russian Empire regime of the czars perpetrated
\nabout 1.1 murders in 1900-17; half a million are known to have taken place in Asian
\nTurkey; the remainder (mostly deaths of prisoners of war in WWI) are assigned to
\nEurope.
\nThus, the total European democide is: USSR 61.9 million + Russian Czars .6
\nmillion + Nazis 20.9 million + Poland post-WWII ethnic cleansing 1.6 million + other
\nlesser European democides (Table 2) 2.1 million = 87.1 million.
\nThe European twentieth-century democide of 87.1 million is over a hundred times
\nlarger than the highest possible estimate of American twentieth-century excess gun
\nhomicides of 756,000. Over the long run, the risk of being murdered is much lower in
\nthe United States than in Europe. No wonder that migration between Europe and the
\nUnited States has always been very heavily in one direction.
\nI am alive to write this Article because my Jewish German and Lithuanian
\nancestors migrated to the United States in the nineteenth century. By moving to the
\nUnited States, they significantly increased their risk of being shot by an individual
\ncriminal and drastically reduced their risk of being murdered by criminal
\ngovernments. The risks did, in fact, materialize in Germany under the Nazis and the
\nCommunists, and in Lithuania under the Czars, the Nazis, and the Communists.
\nBecause governments are so much more effective at killing than are individual
\n38 The population of the Soviet Union was 194 million. Of that total, about 25.2 million lived in \u201crepublics\u201d in Asia
\n(Uzbek, Kazakh, Georgian, Azerbaijan, Georgian, Kirghiz, Tadzhik, Armenian, and Turkmen Soviet Socialist
\nRepublics). The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic was by far the largest in area and population (110
\nmillion as of 1940), and spanned Europe and Asia. See Population (USSR), The Great Soviet Encyclopedia Wiki,
\nhttps:\/\/greatsovietencyclopedia.fandom.com\/wiki\/Population_(USSR). Based on the common figure that about
\nthree-quarters of the Russian SFSR population is in Europe, about 27.5 million of the Russian SFSR population was
\nAsian. So of the USSR\u2019s 194 million population, about 52.7 million was Asian. Therefore, about 73 percent of the
\nUSSR population was European. Accordingly, of the 56.3 million Soviet murders within the USSR, 73 percent are
\nassigned to Europe.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n13 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\ncriminals (even the aggregate of all individual criminals), the United States was
\nmuch safer than Europe in the twentieth century.
\nAs noted above, the democide figures do not include battle deaths. As Rummel
\nshows, democracies almost never start wars with each other.39 Conversely, the less
\ndemocratic a regime, the greater the foreign violence, although individual exceptions
\ncan be found.40 The next Part of this Article examines what types of regimes are most
\nlikely to perpetrate democide, and how much confidence people can have their
\nparticular nation will never fall under the power of such as regime.
\nIII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREEDOM AND MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT
\nThe likelihood that a government will perpetrate mass murder is very dependent
\non the type of government. Totalitarian regimes, especially communist ones,
\nperpetrate by far the most; also deadly are highly authoritarian regimes.41 Mildly
\nauthoritarian regimes or democracies perpetrate much fewer, especially against their
\nown people.42 Indeed, no democratic government has committed democide against an
\nenfranchised population.43 As long as true elections are allowed, governments do not
\nmass murder voters.44
\nProfessor Rummel\u2019s data analysis found a very strong relationship between total
\nregime power and domestic democide; the findings were not changed by variables
\nsuch as diversity, culture, or society.45 In the figure below, the X axis is regime power.
\nThe Y axis is democide. Bigger data points indicate greater democide. The Y axis is
\ncompressed, because it is logarithmic scale. If the Y axis were simply raw figures for
\ndemocide, the upward slope of the line would be much steeper.46
\n39 RUMMEL, POWER KILLS, supra, at 59-80. 40 Id. 41 Id. at 91-98. 42 Id. 43 Rudolph J. Rummel, Democracy, Power, Genocide and Mass Murder, 39 J. CONFLICT RESOL. 3 (1995). 44 Id. 45 RUMMEL, STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE, supra, at 419. 46 Logarithmic scales are used to present data graphs where there is a very wide range of numbers. So in logarithmic
\nscale using base 10, the distance from 1,000 to 10,000 is the same as the distance from 1,000,000 to 10,000,000.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 14
\nSource: Rummel, Statistics of Democide, at 381 fig. 17.5.
\nAs long as you are sure your government will always be free and democratic, then
\nyou don\u2019t have to worry about your government perpetrating democide (at least not
\ndomestically against people who can vote). With the assurance that democide will
\nnever take place in a given nation, then the government can implement stringent gun
\ncontrol. Guns will never be needed to resist tyranny, while gun control might,
\narguably, reduce ordinary homicide rates\u2014as suggested by the figure of 745,000
\nexcess firearms homicides from ordinary crime in the U.S. during the twentieth
\ncentury.
\nUnfortunately, the simple answer is too simplistic. In well-functioning
\ndemocracies, it is possible to say with high confidence, \u201ca year from now, this country
\nwill still be a democracy.\u201d But what 15 or 50 years from now? A century?
\nWill the United States always have a republican form of government? In the last
\npresidential election, the losing candidate\u2014Donald Trump\u2014attempted to steal the
\nelection, by making factually unsupportable claims of fraud that were supposedly
\nbroad enough to have changed the results in several states.47 On January 6, two
\nhundred or more of Trump\u2019s supporters violently attacked the United States
\nCapitol.48 Some of them threatened to kill the Vice-President for his refusal to assist
\nin the attempted election theft.49 While the violent mob was in the Capitol\u2014
\npreventing Congress from carrying out its constitutional duty of recording the
\nelectoral votes from the States\u2014House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
\ntelephoned the President to urge him to tell the violent mob to desist. The President
\n47 See, e.g., Rowan Scarborough, States caught up in ‘Stop the Steal’ rebut Trump’s claims point by point, WASH.
\nTIMES, Feb. 7, 2021. 48 See Paul P. Murphy, Katelyn Polantz & Marshall Cohen, More than 200 people now charged in connection with
\nCapitol riot, CNN.COM, Feb. 9, 2021. 49 See Dan Evon, Was \u2018Hang Mike Pence\u2019 Chanted at Capitol Riot? SNOPES.COM, Jan. 9, 2021.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n15 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nrefused, and responded \u201cWell, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the
\nelection than you are.\u201d50
\nThe events following the last presidential election were an escalation of what
\nfollowed the 2016 presidential election. There, the losing candidate and her
\nsupporters made utterly false claims that the election had been stolen.51 Theories
\nwere circulated based on ridiculous assertions, such as that Russia had hacked voting
\nmachines. The lies about election fraud were supported by the Speaker of the U.S.
\nHouse of Representatives,52 and by Joseph Biden.53 Sadly, opinion polls indicate that
\na large share of Republicans believe the brazen lies about the supposedly stolen 2020
\nelection,54 and about half or more Democrats believe the equally brazen lies about
\n2016.55 All the above are signs of a dying democracy, not a healthy one. When neither
\nside is willing to acknowledge defeat in elections, then the future of elections is in
\nperil.
\nGlobally, the idea that it is easy for nations to maintain independence (e.g., not
\nbeing conquered by a foreign dictatorship) and a free government is incorrect. Of the
\n196 nations in the world, only 8 were both independent and free for the entire
\ntwentieth century: Australia, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand,
\nthe United Kingdom, and the United States.56
\nIf we add in nations that were once colonies but attained independence during the
\ntwentieth century, we can add a few nations that maintained independence and free
\ngovernment for their entire post-colonial period. The largest such nation is Israel,
\nwhich won independence in 1948. Several Caribbean and Pacific islands have kept
\nfree governments throughout their independence.
\nOf the eight countries that did manage to stay independent and free for the whole
\ncentury, five are in the Anglosphere. One is the United Kingdom itself, and the others
\n(U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) were originally British colonies and were,
\ninitially, mainly settled by immigrants from the United Kingdom. Is there some sort
\n50 See Andrew Solender. Trump Reportedly Told McCarthy Rioters Were \u2018More Upset About The Election\u2019 Than He
\nWas During Attack, FORBES, Feb.12, 2021. 51 See, e.g., William Cummings, \u2018You can have the election stolen from you,\u2019 Hillary Clinton warns 2020
\nDemocrats, USA TODAY, May 6, 2019. 52 \u201cOur election was hijacked. There is no question.\u201d @SpeakerPelosi, TWITTER, May 16, 2017,
\nhttps:\/\/twitter.com\/SpeakerPelosi\/status\/864522009048494080. 53 See, e.g., Diana Stancy Correl, Biden agrees with woman who says Trump is ‘an illegitimate president’, WASH.
\nEXAMINER, May 14, 2019. 54 See Most GOP Voters Still Don\u2019t Think Biden Was Elected Fairly, Rasmussen Reports, Feb. 12, 2021 (60% of
\nRepublicans said \u201cno\u201d to the question, \u201cDid Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election fairly?\u201d). The figure may
\noverstate the percentage of believe that fraud altered the vote count; the question wording is broad enough to
\ninclude, for example, voters who thought the election was unfair because of other reasons, such as media censorship
\nof news about corruption involving Joe Biden\u2019s son Hunter. Cf. Jonathan Turley, Censoring the Biden story: How
\nsocial media becomes state media, The Hill, Oct. 17, 2020. 55 See, e.g., Kathy Frankovic, Belief in conspiracy theories depends largely on which side of the spectrum you fall
\non, YouGov.com (50 percent of Clinton voters believe \u201cRussia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump\u201d),
\nhttps:\/\/today.yougov.com\/topics\/politics\/articles-reports\/2016\/12\/27\/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-politicaliden; Most Democrats Still Say Trump Didn’t Win, Rasmussen Reports, Apr. 12, 2017. 56 The number of nations is based on the number of U.N. members, plus Taiwan, which has been independent of China
\nsince 1949, but over which China continues to make claims. And also counting Palestine, which the United Nations
\ntreats at a non-member observer state.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 16
\nof permanent immunity from domestic dictatorship in highly developed nations of the
\nAnglosphere?
\nAs in Germany in the 1920s, anti-Semitism is out of the closet in today\u2019s
\nAnglosphere. Until recently, the Labour Party, one of the two largest parties in the
\nUnited Kingdom, was led by Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time supporter of Soviet
\ntotalitarianism and of Hamas and other similar entities devoted to exterminating
\nJews.57 A polity that is well vaccinated against supporters of mass murder would
\nnever elevate such a person to major party leadership. And Corbyn\u2019s leadership of the
\nparty was very much the result of his support from grassroots activists.
\nAs detailed by the Canary Mission, Jew-hating student leaders are common on
\nAmerican college campuses.58 Like their national socialist German ancestors of the
\n1920s, they use violence and intimidation to suppress speech in favor of Jews or by
\nJews. Although there are no Hitlerist professors in Anglosphere higher education,
\nthere are many Marxists.59 As applied, the difference between Hitlerism and
\nMarxism is slight\u2014other than the higher murder count of the latter.60
\nWhen the ancient Hebrews had grown weary of governing themselves in a tribal
\nconfederation, they said, \u201cWe want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other
\nnations\u2026\u201d61 The American people are not presently asking for a hereditable
\nmonarchy, but they increasingly asking for one-person rule, and the trend is not
\nnew.62 Today in America, many people are openly hostile to the Constitution and
\nfreedom of speech.63 Political fights concentrate on a President who will rule by
\nExecutive Order and by regulation. The Executive, not Congress, has become the
\nmost powerful lawmaking branch. Throughout the Anglosphere there is growing
\ndisrespect for the rule of law; hostility to constitutional restraints on power;
\nlegislative abdication of responsibility to govern, ceding decisions to a hyperexecutive;
\ngrowing hostility toward freedom of speech and religion; growing tolerance for
\npolitical riots and violence against people based on political opinions; acceptance of
\n57 See, e.g., Robin Simcox, Jeremy Corbyn Has a Soft Spot for Extremists, FOR. POL\u2019Y, Oct. 3, 2018; Daniel
\nFinkelstein, Jeremy Corbyn\u2019s feelings for Soviets are not a secret, THE SUNDAY TIMES (London), Feb. 20, 2018. 58 See https:\/\/canarymission.org\/. 59 See, e.g., Neil Gross & Solon Simmons, The Social and Political Views of American Professors, Working Paper,
\n40-41, Sept. 24, 2007 (self-identified Marxists are 17.6% of social science professors, 25.5% of sociology, 5.0% of
\nhumanities, and 12.0% at liberal arts colleges). 60 Cf. ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR., THE VITAL CENTER (1948) (observing that the communist far left and the fascist
\nfar right are the same in practice).
\n61 1 Samuel 8:19\u201320 (N.I.V.). 62 See, e.g., GENE HEALY, THE CULT OF THE PRESIDENCY, UPDATED: AMERICA’S DANGEROUS DEVOTION TO
\nEXECUTIVE POWER (2009); GENE HEALY, FALSE IDOL: BARACK OBAMA AND THE CONTINUING CULT OF THE
\nPRESIDENCY (2012); ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR., THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY: THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY IN
\nCRISIS (1973). 63 A 2020 survey of American college students found only 52% who believe that the U.S. Constitution \u201cstill needs to
\nbe followed and respected,\u201d while 36% said it was \u201coutdated,\u201d and 13% were not sure. Paul Bedard, Kids today: 4 in
\n10 call Constitution \u2018outdated,\u2019 OK with silencing speech, Wash. Examiner, Oct. 28, 2020 (McLaughlin &
\nAssociates, National Undergraduate Study, 800 undergraduates Sept. 2020). Thirty-nine percent agreed that
\n\u201cphysical violence\u201d is \u201cjustified\u201d against someone \u201cusing hate speech or racially charged comments.\u201d Id. The full
\nreport is embedded in the webpage containing the Bedard article,
\nhttps:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/washington-secrets\/kids-today-4-in-10-call-constitution-outdated-ok-withsilencing-speech. The Constitution results and wording are at page 8, and the violence results on page 18.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n17 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nanti-Semites and other haters as legitimate political actors and their election to high
\noffices. Constitutions and a republican form of government endure only so long as
\nthey are cherished in the hearts and minds of the people. Persons of any political
\npersuasion can easily point to political opponents who embrace malignity, hatred,
\nand authoritarianism. The finger-pointing is accurate. The problem is not just one
\nside of the political spectrum; civil society as whole is deteriorating.64
\nThe deterioration and the executive authoritarianism were exacerbated by the
\nCOVID-19 pandemic.65 Around the world, people have become used to\u2014and mostly
\nsubmissive to\u2014a single person ordering them not to leave their home except in
\nlimited circumstances, not to operate their small business or work at a big business,
\nnot to visit their relatives, and so on. It would be na\u00efve to assume that the precedents
\nset by the COVID lockdowns will never be exploited by future executives.
\nThe Roman Republic lasted for almost five hundred years, which is longer than
\nany Anglosphere nation has been a republic. While historians have always debated
\nabout why the Roman Republic fell, we know that the republic was established in 509
\nB.C. and breathed its last gasp in 27 B.C., after a long period of decline.66 The fall of
\na republic hundreds of years old, holding immense territory and global power, should
\ncaution Americans who fantasize that a republic established in 1776 is guaranteed
\nperpetual existence. The same can be said for the other currently free nations of the
\nAnglosphere and elsewhere.
\nNo one knows the future of the United States. Over past decades, the party in
\npower has alternated, but the overall trend has been centralization of executive
\npower. Where today\u2019s hyper-partisan centralization will lead in a decade or a halfcentury is unknown. Perhaps the constitutional order will prevent the worst from
\nhappening. Perhaps not. Germany in 1900 was a progressive democracy and one of
\nthe most tolerant places in the world for Jews; in any country, things can change a
\nlot in a few decades.
\nIV. THE PERPETRATORS\u2019 VIEWPOINTS IN TYRANNY AND MASS MURDER
\nPart III argued that no nation should consider itself permanently immune to
\nhaving a criminal government that perpetrates democide. Part II argued that the
\ndanger of too many guns (745,000 excess gun homicides in the twentieth century U.S.)
\nis about two orders of magnitude smaller than the dangers of mass murder by
\ngovernment (87,100,000 by European governments in the twentieth century). Part II
\n64 See, e.g., DAVID A. FRENCH, DIVIDED WE FALL: AMERICA’S SECESSION THREAT AND HOW TO RESTORE OUR
\nNATION (2020); JONAH GOLDBERG, THE SUICIDE OF THE WEST: HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM,
\nNATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (2018). 65 See, e.g., Sarah Repucci and Amy Slipowitz, Democracy under Lockdown: The Impact of COVID-19 on the
\nGlobal Struggle for Freedom, Freedom House, Oct. 2020, https:\/\/freedomhouse.org\/sites\/default\/files\/2020-
\n10\/COVID-19_Special_Report_Final_.pdf. 66 EDWARD J. WATTS, MORTAL REPUBLIC: HOW ROME FELL INTO TYRANNY (2018) (centralization, inequality, venal
\npoliticians, public\u2019s neglect in protecting republican institutions); MIKE DUNCAN, THE STORM BEFORE THE STORM:
\nTHE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC (2018) (covering 146 B.C. to 78 B.C.; breakdown of the
\n\u201cunwritten rules, traditions, and mutual expectations collectively known as mos maiorum, which means \u2018the way of
\nthe elders\u2019\u201d).
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 18
\nalso pointed out that mass murders are overwhelming perpetrated by totalitarian or
\nseverely authoritarian governments. But does citizen gun ownership have any role in
\ndeterring dictatorships, or in mitigating their damage? Some persons argue a futility
\nthesis: armed citizens with guns can accomplish nothing against the power of a
\ncentral government and its army. This Part IV considers the futility thesis in light of
\nwhat tyrants throughout history have said and done.
\nThe idea that one cannot rule people without consent unless they are disarmed is
\nnot novel. When the Philistines conquered the Hebrews, they disarmed them.67 The
\ntyrant Peisistratus of ancient Athens seized political power by disarming the people.68
\nWhen King James II of England was trying to assume despotic powers, he worked to
\ndisarm the English people, other than his reliable political supporters.69
\nAdolf Hitler explained the necessity of disarmament:
\nThe most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
\nsubjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
\nhave allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their
\nown downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the
\nsupply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of
\nany sovereignty. So let\u2019s not have any native militia or native police.70
\nWhen the Chinese Communist Party\u2014which would soon become the deadliest
\nmass killer in all of human history\u2014seized power in 1949, one of their first acts was
\nnational gun confiscation.71 When they invaded Tibet a few years later, they first
\ndemanded universal gun registration, which the Tibetans accurately understood as a
\nprelude to gun confiscation and genocide.72 Before the Turkish Ottoman government
\nbegan the Armenian genocide during World War I, it first attempted to disarm the
\nArmenians.73 The Castro regime confiscated Cubans\u2019 guns as soon as it seized
\npower.74 The same by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, who would perpetrate the
\n67 \u201cNot a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, \u2018Otherwise the
\nHebrews will make swords or spears!\u2019 So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plow points, mattocks,
\naxes and sickles sharpened.\u201d 1 Samuel 13:19-20 (N.I.V.). 68 ARISTOTLE, CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS, ch. XV (Thomas J. Dymes trans., 1891) (after he \u201ctook away the arms of
\nthe people,\u201d he told them to \u201cattend to their own affairs, adding that all public matters would now be his concern.\u201d). 69 See\u00b8 e.g., JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE ORIGINS OF AN ANGLO-AMERICAN RIGHT (1996). 70 HITLER\u2019S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944 (H.R. Trevor-Roper ed., Gerhard L. Weinberg trans., 2d ed. 2007) 321 (statement
\nfrom between February and September 1942).
\n71 See JUNG CHANG & JON HALLIDAY, MAO: THE UNKNOWN STORY 424 (2005). 72 See MIKEL DUNHAM, BUDDHA\u2019S WARRIORS: THE STORY OF THE CIA-BACKED TIBETAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS, THE
\nCHINESE INVASION, AND THE ULTIMATE FALL OF TIBET 148 (2004). 73 As U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau later reported, \u201cIf this plan of murdering a race were to succeed, two
\npreliminary steps would therefore have to be taken: it would be necessary to render all Armenian soldiers powerless
\nand to deprive of their arms the Armenians in every city and town. Before Armenia could be slaughtered, Armenia
\nmust be made defenseless.\u201d HENRY MORGENTHAU, AMBASSADOR MORGENTHAU\u2019S STORY: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT
\nOF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 301-02 (1919). 74 See MIGUEL A. FARIA, AMERICA, GUNS, AND FREEDOM: A JOURNEY INTO POLITICS AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH &
\nGUN CONTROL MOVEMENTs 258-62, 267, 318-319 (2019); MIGUEL A. FARIA, CUBA IN REVOLUTION: ESCAPE FROM
\nA LOST PARADISE 62-64, 415-18 (2002).
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n19 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nlargest per capita national genocide ever.75 Governments aiming to mass murder a
\npopulation try to disarm that population, such as in Darfur, Sudan, in the twentyfirst century;76 in Indonesia\u2019s ethnic cleansing of East Timor in the 1970s;77 in
\nSrebenica, Bosnia, in the 1990s;78 in Kenya and Uganda from the 1960s onward;79
\nand on the Pacific Island of Bougainville.80
\nSometimes, gun registrations lists compiled by democratic governments are later
\nused for confiscation by dictatorships that take over the government. That was what
\nhappened to the German Weimer Republic\u2019s gun registration lists after the Nazis
\ncame in first in the 1933 elections.81 The same occurred with French gun registration
\nrecords, after Nazi Germany conquered France in 1940.82
\nAs dictators seem to recognize, people who have no hope of overthrowing a regime
\ncan still make work more difficult for the secret police. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the
\nRussian author of the most influential expos\u00e9 of the communist slave labor camps
\nunder Lenin and Stalin, recalled the prisoners\u2019 feelings:
\nAnd how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things
\nhave been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to
\nmake an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and
\nhad to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests,
\nas for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire
\ncity, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at
\nevery bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but
\nhad understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the
\ndownstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers,
\npokers, or whatever else was at hand? … The Organs [of the state] would
\n75
\nEang [a woman] watched soldiers stride onto the porches of the houses and knock on the doors and
\nask the people who answered if they had any weapons. \u201cWe are here now to protect you,\u201d the
\nsoldiers said, \u201cand no one has a need for a weapon any more.\u201d People who said that they kept no
\nweapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves. . . . The round-up
\nof weapons took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer
\narmed, they dropped their pretense of friendliness. . . . The soldiers said everyone would have to
\nleave the village for a while, so that the troops could search for weapons; when the search was
\nfinished, they could return
\nAlec Wilkinson, A Changed Vision of God, NEW YORKER, Jan. 24, 1994, at 54-55. Rather than being allowed to return,
\nthe people were marched to rural slave labor camps. See, e.g., KIERNAN, supra. 76 See Kopel et al., Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right, supra, at 1312-20. 77 See David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, Guns Ownership and Human Rights, 9 BROWN J. WORLD
\nAFFAIRS 1, 9-10 (2003). 78 See David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, Firearms Possession by “Non-State Actors”: the Question of
\nSovereignty, 8 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 373, 426-35 (2004). 79 See David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, & Joanne D. Eisen, Human Rights and Gun Confiscation, 26 Quinnipiac L.
\nRev. 383, 388-409 (2008). 80 See Kopel et al., Guns Ownership and Human Rights, supra, at 4-6. 81 See STEPHEN P. HALBROOK, GUN CONTROL IN THE THIRD REICH: DISARMING THE JEWS AND \u201cENEMIES OF THE
\nSTATE\u201d (2014). 82 See STEPHEN P. HALBROOK, GUN CONTROL IN NAZI OCCUPIED-FRANCE: TYRANNY AND RESISTANCE (2018).
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 20
\nvery quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and,
\nnotwithstanding all of Stalin\u2019s thirst, the cursed machine would have
\nground to a halt! If … if … We didn\u2019t love freedom enough. And even
\nmore\u2014we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and
\nsimply deserved everything that happened afterward.83
\nIn extermination camps, slave labor camps, and other persecution camps, the
\nprisoners are not allowed to be armed. The obvious reason is that armed prisoners
\nwould be harder to execute or to work to death. For example, during the Holocaust,
\nthe Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps were permanently shut down by
\nprisoner revolts, when the prisoners managed to steal some weapons from the guards,
\nand then use those weapons to take some more. Few prisoners survived the revolts,
\nbut they were all going to die anyway; their heroism saved many by putting those
\ndeath camps out of business permanently.84
\nAs Ronald Reagan observed,
\nWhen dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people\u2019s
\nweapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so
\nmuch easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled\u2026.The gun has been called
\nthe great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large
\nperson, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are
\nthe equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant
\nand not master of the governed.85
\nAll tyrants seek to make their government stronger than the people.
\nMurderous regimes kill in many different ways, from primitive famine or to
\nindustrial gas chambers. Mass shootings are common. For example, in the first year
\nof the Nazi holocaust in conquered areas of the Soviet Union, special killing crews,
\nEinsaztgruppen, rounded up all the Jews and Roma (Gypsies) in a village and
\nmachine gunned them.86 About a million were killed.87 During Chinese Communist
\nParty Chairman Mao\u2019s 1949-51 Great Terror, about 1.5 to 2 million were executed by
\ngunfire, many in mass public events with mandatory attendance.88
\nWhile tyrants disarm victims, disarmament does not always lead to tyranny. Since
\nbeing liberated in 1945 from Nazi occupation, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have
\nremained free nations. Over time, the governments of both nations have almost
\n83 1-2 ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO 1918-1956: AN EXPERIMENT IN LITERARY
\nINVESTIGATION 13 n.5 (Thomas P. Whitney trans. 1973) (brackets added, ellipses in original). 84 See DAVID B. KOPEL, THE MORALITY OF SELF-DEFENSE AND MILITARY ACTION: THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN
\nPERSPECTIVE 108-11 (2017). 85 Ronald Reagan, The Gun Owners\u2019 Champion, GUNS & AMMO, Sept. 1975. 86 See Yehuda Bauer, Jewish Resistance in the Ukraine and Belarus During the Holocaust, in JEWISH RESISTANCE
\nAGAINST THE NAZIS 485-93 (Patrick Henry ed. 2014) 87 HILLARY EARL, THE NUREMBERG SS-EINSATZGRUPPEN TRIAL, 1945-1958, at 4-8 (2009); REUBEN AINSZTEIN,
\nJEWISH RESISTANCE IN NAZI-OCCUPIED EASTERN EUROPE 222-25 (1974). 88 See FRANK DIK\u00d6TTER, THE TRAGEDY OF LIBERATION: A HISTORY OF THE CHINESE REVOLUTION 1945-1957, at 86,
\n91-99 (2013); RUMMEL, CHINA\u2019S BLOODY CENTURY, supra, at 224-25l.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n21 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\ncompletely disarmed the public. In the past 100 years, they were ruled by a genocidal
\ntotalitarian dictatorship for only 4. The disarmament in the two nations seems to
\npresume that the next 100 years are guaranteed to be like the last 65.
\nV. EFFICACY OF CITIZEN ARMS IN PREVENTING MASS MURDER
\nA. Deterrence
\nRegime change is difficult once a tyrant has taken power. So as an anti-tyranny
\ntool, widespread citizen arms ownership works most effectively when it functions as
\na deterrent. \u201cThe power of the people is not when they strike, but when they keep in
\nawe: it is when they can overthrow every thing, that they never need to move.\u201d89 In
\nEngland, the very existence of a well-armed population during the reign of Henry
\nVIII deterred the despotically-inclined king from pushing things so far as to cause a
\nnational uprising.90 During World War II, one reason there was no Holocaust in
\nSwitzerland was because the Swiss people were heavily armed in a very wellregulated militia.91 The very strong deterrent effect of armed victims is demonstrated
\nby the consistent behavior of tyrants in waiting to start mass murder until the victims
\nhave been disarmed.
\nB. Saving Lives Without Changing the Regime
\nSometimes people find themselves in a position where the possibility of deterrence
\nis long past. Even after genocides and other mass murders have already begun, when
\nvictims obtain arms, they can save lives. As noted supra, the Nazi extermination
\ncamps of Sobibor and Treblinka were shut down forever because Jewish prisoners
\nstole guns from the guards and led mass revolts.92 Persons who use arms against
\nconcentration camp guards or secret police are unlikely to survive, but they may save
\nothers\u2014sometimes many others.
\nAlthough rebels usually lose, on occasion they prevail even under desperate
\ncircumstances. The Sudanese government\u2019s genocide campaign in the Nuba
\nMountains failed because well-trained defenders were better fighters than the
\ngovernment\u2019s militias.
\nThroughout the early 1990s, the Nuba SPLA [Sudan People’s Liberation Army]
\nwas cut off from the world. There was no resupply: they had no vehicles, had no
\nheavy weapons, and sometimes only had a handful of bullets each. There was no
\nhumanitarian presence in the SPLA-held areas at all. There was no news coverage.
\n89 J.L. DE LOLME, THE CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND 219 (John MacGregor ed., J. Cuthell 1853) (1775). 90 See CHARLES OMAN, A HISTORY OF THE ART OF WAR IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 288 (Greenhill 1999) (1937)
\n(\u201cMore than once he had to restrain himself, when he discovered the general feelings of his subjects was against him.
\nAs the Pilgrimage of Grace showed, great bodies of malcontents might flare up in arms, and he had no sufficient
\nmilitary force to oppose them\u2026.\u201d). 91 See STEPHEN P. HALBROOK, TARGET SWITZERLAND: SWISS ARMED NEUTRALITY IN WORLD WAR II (1998). 92 Text at note supra.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n2021 (forthcoming) Guns Kill People 22
\nFacing collective annihilation and with nothing but themselves to rely on, the Nuba
\npeople found the necessary determination and reserves of energy.93
\nAlthough the Nuba lost territory, \u201ca mountainous base area remained
\nimpregnable.\u201d94
\nTo the Sudanese example may be added several others, none of which had the
\ncapacity to effectuate regime change:
\nDuring World War I, the Ottoman Empire perpetrated genocide against
\nArmenians, Assyrians, and other Christians in Turkey. Armed resistance made it
\npossible for over 200,000 potential victims to escape to Russia. In fortified towns,
\nmonasteries, and other defensible positions, the besieged Christians often were
\nstarved out and killed. But sometimes the attackers retreated and a village
\nsurvived.95
\nDuring World War II in Eastern Europe, a single Jewish partisan unit, the Bielski
\nBrothers, saved over a thousand Jews.96 Armed revolts in the cities, most famously
\nthe Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, didn\u2019t save the lives of the fighters. But they did show
\nthe world that the Jews were not just victims; they were allies fighting in the common
\ncause against Hitler, and they deserved a share of the post-war settlement.97 There
\nis a direct line between the Warsaw revolt and the 1948 establishment of the State of
\nIsrael\u2014a state where the Jewish people are well-armed. From 1948 onward, Israel
\nhas defeated wars of Jewish extermination launched by nearby tyrants.
\nTibet, after many years of self-government, was invaded and conquered by
\nCommunist China in 1951.98 Armed resistance began almost immediately, and
\ngreatly intensified after the communists announced a gun registration program,
\nwhich was universally understood as a prelude to confiscation.99 By mid-1956, most
\nof the land of Tibet had been liberated.100 Ultimately, China\u2019s overwhelming
\nnumerical superiority finally defeated the Tibetans.101 But in the meantime, tens of
\nthousands of Tibetans escaped.102 Among them was the Dalai Lama.103 As refugees
\nin India, the Tibetans kept their religion and culture alive, and have brought global
\nattention to Tibet\u2019s rights of self-government against Chinese imperialism.104
\n93 Alex de Waal, Sudan: Patterns of Violence and Imperfect Endings, in HOW MASS ATROCITIES END: STUDIES
\nFROM GUATEMALA, BURUNDI, INDONESIA, THE SUDANS, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, AND IRAQ 121, 129-32 (Bridget
\nConley-Zilkic ed. 2016). 94 Id. 95 JOHNSON et al., supra, at online supp. 405-16, http:\/\/firearmsregulation.org\/www\/WK_FRRP_2020_Ch14.pdf. 96 See PETER DUFFY, THE BIELSKI BROTHERS 259, 265, 282 (2002) 97 See ABRAM L. SACHAR, THE REDEMPTION OF THE UNWANTED: FROM THE LIBERATION OF THE DEATH CAMPS TO
\nTHE FOUNDING OF ISRAEL 54 (1983); William Zukerman, The Revolt in the Warsaw Ghetto, HARPER\u2019S MAG., Sept.
\n1943 (\u201cAs the British press was the first to admit, the Jews now have a new and different claim for consideration, a
\nclaim not of passive victims, but of active allies and partners who have fought the common enemy.\u201d). 98 Kopel, The Party Controls the Gun, supra, at 453-55. 99 Id. at 1893-95. 100 Id. at 1895-96. 101 Id. at 1910-11. 102 Id. at.1914 103 Id. at 1909. 104 Id. at 1914-16.
\nElectronic copy available at: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3942071
\n23 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24
\nVI. CONCLUSION
\nIt is agreed by the United Nations and the European Union that genocide must be
\nthwarted and prevented, and tyranny resisted. Yet the UN and EU gun control
\nprograms fail to account for life-saving benefits of arms in preventing or resisting
\ntyranny and genocide. Further, the EU and UN gun control programs create central
\nregistration lists, which facilitate gun confiscation by tyrants and genocidaires. The
\nhistorical record shows that no nation should imagine itself permanently immune
\nfrom the dangers of totalitarianism. Because the death toll inflicted on disarmed
\npopulations is vastly greater than deaths from (allegedly) insufficient gun control, as
\nin the United States, the EU and the UN should adopt a more balanced approach.
\nWhile working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the UN and EU should also
\nrecognize the long-term public safety benefits\u2014namely, reducing mass murder by
\ngovernment\u2014of widespread citizen arms possession.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Guns Kill People, and Tyrants with Gun Monopolies Kill the Most What are the relative risks of a nation having too many guns compared to the risks of the nation having too few guns? Comparing and contrasting Europe and the United States during the twentieth century, the article finds that the United States might have … Continue reading “Guns Kill People, and Tyrants with Gun Monopolies Kill the Most”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-76669","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/76669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=76669"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/76669\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":77226,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/76669\/revisions\/77226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=76669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}