Would it be accurate to say that Gavrilo Princip is indirectly responsible for more deaths than any other human being?

Would it be accurate to say that Gavrilo Princip is indirectly responsible for more deaths than any other human being?

Honestly it was someone else's fault.

He wouldn't have been put in that position if Princip hadn't done what he did, though.

And Princip wouldn't have done what he did if Serbia had been united

So really it's the Habsburgs who are at fault

Adam.

This uh, logic, can be used to justify pretty much anything.

>indirectly

So, if someone doesn't give you what you want, you should be able to do whatever you want to them?

>Thinks killing political leaders with assassination is justified

So if someone shot one of Trump's advisors while on a trip to Venezuela and Venezuela helped hide the people responsible, we should be OK with it?

What about the man who invented the gun?

The lives he also indirectly saved would even it out.

no. i even just killed more humans jerking off to this awesome amateur porn i found on xvideos.

should and will are matters you dictate of your own accord so yes it could be reason enough

Are you fucking sure about that, I don't think 60+ million people could die in WW2 without guns unless the war lasted like 100 years

A gun is a tool. What they do are only the will of the user.

If I made a gun and give it to someone and they kill someone with it, did I kill them or did that person?

What Princip did was commit an intentional action that directly led to two massive wars. He didn't give Europe a tool to commit war, he gave them a reason.

The gun increased the capacity to wage war allowing more people to die

If you're going by that logic the person who first invented farming would be responsible for the most deaths since more people means more deaths, Honestly its a really stupid point that can be argued either way and not in a good way

No, nothing about him shooting the Austrian archduke entailed starting a world war. There was going to be another war in the Balkans because there were people who wanted it for nationalist or expansionist reasons. He was just a pawn, for both sides.

Yes, it was all his fault

>I kill them or did that person?
You indirectly killed them. Also I doubt guns saved anywhere near as many lives as they've taken since lives saved by guns generally either are canceled out by the aggressor being killed or it is a person defending themselves from an animal that they weren't already attacking with a gun.

Think about that statement for more than five seconds. A gun is a lethal weapon. Even when it saves someone, it's killing another person, so it can't "even out" as there are going to be few cases where net live saved is more than lives lost.

Not to mention this thread is not about lives saved, so your point is irrelevant anyway.

Martin Luther > Karl Marx > Gavrilo Princip

In exactly that order. I'm German btw, so no bias.

Why did you post the edited photograph?

Not even close.

>Even when it save someone, it's killing another person.
Fallacy. You can save someone with a gun without killing another person.

You could threaten the person, or shoot them in a non-vital spot (Foot) and they will back off. Your argument falls apart when guns = instant death.

That whole "Princip started WW1" thing is such a labored meme.

Anyways do yourselves a favor and read a detailed description of the day of the assassination, the amount of fuckups on both sides and the insane luck of Princip could make for an ebin movie

I'm not saying it's justified you fucking mongoloids, I'm saying everything has a cause and effect

It's like ISIS, yeah they're bad and shit, but the reason they exist in the first place is because of western meddling in the middle east

Suppose it depends on if he ever existed or not.

You retards, it's the Tsar's fault. The russian ambassador met with him and the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church to see if they'd mobilize, and when some squire insulted his decision-making skills, he offically mobilized the army onto Austria-Hungary.

> falling for the "it's always russia" meme again

no idiot

its the black naked wolf angel furry that made him do it

>responsibility existing in a deterministic reality

Who DIRECTLY killed or was responsible for the deaths of most people? Killed or ordered and then oversaw the killing. Rudolf Höss?

Genghis delegated a lot of his slaughter to his generals, this guy was full blood and guts from the day he got into power until the day he died.

Ferdinand was killed by the Austrian government in order to justify going into Serbia. The Black Hand literally had no motive to kill him.

Considering he indirectly caused both World Wars and the other deaths attributable to both Nazism and Communism, yes.

I think the only other person who comes close is Muhammad because of how brutal the Muslim conquest of India was, but that's many centuries after Muhammad died.

>t. Fedora tipping faggot

>kills four empires with two bullets
SRBIJA STRONK

>t. Indy Neidell

>Venezuela and Venezuela helped hide the people responsible

What are you implying here? The Austrians caught Princip and his mates right there in Sarajevo and they were tried and many executed.

Also daily reminder that Serbia accepted Austria-Hungary's ultimatum but the Habsburgs chimped out anyway.