If the jews in WW2 were like Americans and owned guns.Would so many have died?

Question

This is prompted by a question someone asked me when I was arguing against gun ownership (I am British)

Answer 1

Well, that wasn't a very good comparison to make if he was trying to be pro guns.  Debating whether oppressed Jews could have fought of a force that nearly took over all of Europe is a poor debate.

There are many reasons why gun ownership is both good and bad.  As with anything, you have your fanatical groups like the NRA that believe a citizen should be allowed to own any gun.

Being from a country where guns are illegal, you probably have limited insight to both sides of the argument.  But, just to raise a point, gun ownership was one of the reasons the "colonies" gained independence from British rule.  This is why the right to bear arms law is so ingrained into the constitution.

Answer 2

It would have made no difference if they were armed, the Germans were too big and too strong

Answer 3

please remember the Jews were not arrested and taken away by the German ARMY.....they were done in by the Gestapo.........the German Secret Police.....and some of the SS...

if 10 % of the Jews that died had killed just one Gestapo as he came through their door....well, I don't think the Gestapo ever had 600,00 officers

Answer 4

well the Jews did fight back in the Warsaw ghetto and they where over ran

how can you fight back when the state (the government) is trying to wipe you out

you have no rights the law does not protect you, how do you fight back ?

Answer 5

Next time you ask a question, think about what you're asking first.

Answer 6

Yes, the n***s had much better weapons and were better organised.

The only difference may have been that more n***s may have died

Answer 7

Look into the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and you have your answer. Far more of them would have died, maybe all of them. The Germans would have just killed them more ferociously if they had fought back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghet...

Answer 8

not much good against panzer tanks...

look at the warsaw uprising, no they wouldn't have. if anything, it would just have given hitler greater support i.e. accusing them of plotting a revolution.  

Answer 9

The Germans were able economically to dispose of large numbers of Jews (yes: using Jewish community leaders as go-betweens) simply because the Jews had a tradition of compliance with the civil power and bending to the storm until normality returned. They did not realise until too late that Hitler was exterminating, not merely persecuting them.

Had the Jews had a different tradition: had they been aggressive and used to arms, with guns in their possession which they were prepared to use, they might have been wiped out anyway - but the Germans would have needed to commit more troops to the task and it would have taken far longer, compromising the wider war effort.

The Jews would have had at least a fighting chance of saving some of their people, and at the worst could only have died - as they were in any case booked to do. When faced with certain death, any chance is better than none. If only they had realised in time.

Answer 10

probably not, but at least they would go down with honor and not like cattle being led to slaughter.

Answer 11

The jews didnt want to fight back many actually collaborated with the n***s - the concentration camps were largely run by trustee jewish inmates - they were called Kapos.

Answer 12

They would have owned

Answer 13

Like Prince H said, it would have made little difference.  You cannot fight the State which is using the State-controlled Army (and civil laws/edicts ) to eliminate you.   Hitler quickly took away all their rights and gave the SS carte-blanche to murder them regardless.  And he also starved them into weakness.  How can you fight back against evil like that.

Answer 14

whenever an american says that the US cant be invaded because everyone has guns, i always reply with 'what use is an untrained civilian with a handgun against a BATTLE TANK'

Answer 15

Roughly the same number would have died.

The gun lobby makes this ridiculous argument in the same way that thousands of others make similarly idiotic points by calling people n***s or Hitlers when there is little in common.

It's a pointless argument because it doesn't even come close to being an analogy, and more often not those aren't a good way of reaching a logical conclusion.

The only way there would be a real difference is if European Jews had been assembled into *well regulated militia*- the gun lobby conveniently forgets this context of the second amendment.  If you read the whole sentence, it's quite easy to see that guns were never meant to be a personal right to guard one's self, but a right of the people against a tyrannical government, as is the case with the entire Bill of Rights.

This is not to say that there is no grounds for a personal right to have them as with any unbanned property.  Many pre-revolution settlers owned guns and other weapons for hunting and self protection.  But the second amendment does not limit government's ability to restrict weapons of certain types or from certain places.

Answer 16

Yes, the Jews in Poland armed themselfes and where defeated! Howver there were a few days of resistance!

The Serbs would have killed less Bosnians if they had weapons! by the way!

Answer 17

They would have been no match for the German army or police wether they had guns or not