Gun Law Hypocricy

[bmulligan]

Why are American soldiers taking guns away from ordinary citizens? As the standard argument suggests, criminals will have guns regardless of any laws passed, so I can't understand why it is necessary to deprive individual Iraqi's the right to protect themselves.

Am I missing something here? Does gun control curb gun violence, or just make the streets safe for the criminals? Where is the outrage and the NRA?

[ydejin]

bmulligan, a most interesting observation. One cynical response would be that neither the administration nor the NRA truly believes the line "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The cynical view is that this is simply a line created to fight gun control and both the NRA and Bush recognize the simple logic that more guns on the street makes it easier for both criminals as well as law-abiding citizens to kill people. However, I don't think we need to go that far to explain the Iraqi situation.

Consider the purpose of the second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow creation of a militia "for the security of a free state." I presume that means the militia is meant to prevent possible tyranny from the government and to fight foreign invaders. In Iraq we are a foreign invader.

Let's flip things around and take a look at everything from an Iraqi standpoint. Here's a key question: from an Iraqi standpoint is an Iraqi shooting at US soldiers breaking the law? That would depend upon whether or not the Iraqis view us as the legitimate government. If we were to interview Iraqi citizens on this subject, I would presume we would find a wide range of opinions. It's obviously very hard to tell from outside Iraq, but I presume right now most Iraqis view us the legitimate authority, but a large (and growing) minority do not. Members of this minority might normally be law abiding citizens and at the same time might be taking shots at our troops. The US authorities are doing everything they can to deprive this group of their weapons.

Another concern would be the transfer of weapons from law abiding citizens to non-law abiding citizens. If a law abiding citizen has a weapon and needs cash, that weapon is likely to end up in the hands of an insurgent. Removing all weapons prevents this possibility.

At this point, I don't think it's possible to break Iraqis into a simple dichotomy of law abiding citizens and criminals. An Iraqi who is currently supportive of the US might change his mind after being subjected to too many checkpoints and searches or after the US accidently kills a family member. That same Iraqi might then turn around and take a shot at us. So as a means of protecting our troops, presumably we are trying to deprive everyone of their weapons.

I don't think it's fair to take Bush or the NRA to task on this issue at this point. I think a clearer test of the administration and the NRAs commitment to their principles will come when Iraq writes its new constitution. Will the administration and the NRA support a second amendment style clause to the Iraqi constitution?

[Jason McCullough]

How about "contrary to NRA statements, guns are used in the US to reinforce the power structure, not oppose it"?

[Chris Nahr]

That may be true of the weapons industry but I don't really see how privately owned guns could be used to reinforce an existing power structure, unless that power structure was one of permanent tribal warfare. Or did shotgun-wielding rednecks ever appear in your office and try to lynch you for being a pinko commie traitor? :wink:

[Guido Jones]

You also have to consider that the US is a fairly stable democracy, while Iraq is anything but that right now. As such, different rules need to be in place.

Also what kind of weapons are being taken away? There's a difference between a handgun that can hold a maximum of 10 rounds (by Law) and a AK-47 that can fire at full auto, or say an RPG-7.

[ydejin]

You also have to consider that the US is a fairly stable democracy, while Iraq is anything but that right now. As such, different rules need to be in place.

Agreed.


Also what kind of weapons are being taken away? There's a difference between a handgun that can hold a maximum of 10 rounds (by Law) and a AK-47 that can fire at full auto, or say an RPG-7.

I haven't heard any specific information on this (perhaps bmulligan can provide more details), but I assume if we're taking weapons, we're probably taking everything. We've had several soldiers shot at point blank range with pistols, so I assume handguns are fair game for confiscation.

[Erik Andersson]

Also what kind of weapons are being taken away? There's a difference between a handgun that can hold a maximum of 10 rounds (by Law) and a AK-47 that can fire at full auto, or say an RPG-7.

If the handgun doesn't kill people, doesn't that mean that the AK-47 doesn't kill people faster?

[Toddy]

Who cares? It's not like any such effort has a hope in hell of being successful. Almost every Iraqi is decked out like one of Charlton Heston's wet dreams, so don't count on these plans getting anywhere. All it'll do is piss off more Iraqis.

"Let's see, you come to my country, turn it into an anarchic playground where looting is the biggest growth industry, and now expect me to turn in the only means I have to defend myself and my family? All due respect, Mr. Bremer, fuck you."

[Guido Jones]

Also what kind of weapons are being taken away? There's a difference between a handgun that can hold a maximum of 10 rounds (by Law) and a AK-47 that can fire at full auto, or say an RPG-7.

If the handgun doesn't kill people, doesn't that mean that the AK-47 doesn't kill people faster?

Only idiots think guns don't kill people.

[Mark Asher]

You also have to consider that the US is a fairly stable democracy, while Iraq is anything but that right now. As such, different rules need to be in place.

Also what kind of weapons are being taken away? There's a difference between a handgun that can hold a maximum of 10 rounds (by Law) and a AK-47 that can fire at full auto, or say an RPG-7.

I agree about it being different situations, but the irony is that one of the main arguments used by gun ownership advocates for citizens having guns is to protect themselves from an oppressive government. The Iraqi citizens need guns for this purpose much more than our citizens do.

[Mark Asher]

Who cares? It's not like any such effort has a hope in hell of being successful. Almost every Iraqi is decked out like one of Charlton Heston's wet dreams, so don't count on these plans getting anywhere. All it'll do is piss off more Iraqis.

"Let's see, you come to my country, turn it into an anarchic playground where looting is the biggest growth industry, and now expect me to turn in the only means I have to defend myself and my family? All due respect, Mr. Bremer, fuck you."

Heh -- yeah, it's crazy, isn't it? Now we're busting into houses searching for weapons. Whatever good will we earned by ousting Saddam is rapidly being used up. Another few months and whatever problems the Iraqis have they will blame on the new oppressors, the occupying forces of the U.S.

[Jason McCullough]

That may be true of the weapons industry but I don't really see how privately owned guns could be used to reinforce an existing power structure, unless that power structure was one of permanent tribal warfare. Or did shotgun-wielding rednecks ever appear in your office and try to lynch you for being a pinko commie traitor? :wink:

I'm reading Parting The Waters at the moment, and the entire book is a case study in this sort of thing. Armed mobs of the elite have a lot of luck fending off power challenges.

The NRA's membership doesn't exactly scream "oppressed minority"; they run the south and west.

[antlers]

That may be true of the weapons industry but I don't really see how privately owned guns could be used to reinforce an existing power structure, unless that power structure was one of permanent tribal warfare. Or did shotgun-wielding rednecks ever appear in your office and try to lynch you for being a pinko commie traitor? :wink:

I'm reading Parting The Waters at the moment, and the entire book is a case study in this sort of thing. Armed mobs of the elite have a lot of luck fending off power challenges.

The NRA's membership doesn't exactly scream "oppressed minority"; they run the south and west.

Also, illegal drug distribution networks are part of the "existing power structure", as well as the law-enforcement structures with which they are co-dependent.

[Jakub]

To secure a country you must subdue its populace. The first bold step, after creating a semblance of peace, is to disarm them.

[bmulligan]

I think we need to hear more from the Swiss on this subject....aren't they all armed? Don't they have the lowest gun crime statistics in the world? Isn't that why Hitler balked at going into Sweeden?

What I read was an AP article in our local paper. It mentioned the 'confiscation of any weapons' during door to door searches in and around Bagdad.

I can understand the fact that we can't readily determine our friends from our enemies, but why are we making enemies of our friends? Surely all the citizens don't hate us, at least not until we kick their door in at random, tie them up, search their house, and deprive them of any ability to protect themselves from the criminal element. They've been living like this for over 30 years, now we are supposed to be saving them and we treat them the same way?

How can Israel identify specific terrorist leaders, track their movements, and kill them and their entourages with stunning accuracy yet we cannot seem to track down gangs of Saddams mujahadeen and must resort to terroristic techniques of our own to smoke them out?

Regardless of the thousands of weapons we may confiscate, weapons will still end up in the hands of Iraqis who choose to loot the populace, kill americans, or simply protect themselves. It seems to me that laying the groundwork for a democratic system would include allowing the citizens the the dignity of self-protection. Imasculating them to 'subdue' the country is only serving to create more opposition to our efforts.

[Anders Hallin]

I think we need to hear more from the Swiss on this subject....aren't they all armed? Don't they have the lowest gun crime statistics in the world? Isn't that why Hitler balked at going into Sweeden?
The Swiss come from Switzerland, Swedes come from Sweden.
And I think it was because they didn't want the iron mines bombed, or something.

[ydejin]

I can understand the fact that we can't readily determine our friends from our enemies, but why are we making enemies of our friends? Surely all the citizens don't hate us, at least not until we kick their door in at random, tie them up, search their house, and deprive them of any ability to protect themselves from the criminal element.


I think you've identified the crux of the problem. How do we maintain control, protect our soldiers, and not tick off the general population. Unfortunately I don't think there are a lot of positive recent historic models for this. British troops, for example, were originally welcomed into Northern Ireland by the Catholics who saw them as protection against the Protestant extremists. We've all seen how that situation devolved.

Here are a few choice quotes from the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/origins/bloodysun.shtml) (admittedly probably not the most unbiased source of information on Ireland) describing some of the events that turned Catholic public opinion against the British troops.


At dawn on Monday 9 August 1971, 3,000 soldiers backed up by RUC Special Branch officers using out-of-date intelligence swooped on houses throughout Northern Ireland and arrested over 300 men. By the time the operation was complete three hours later the army had arrested many who belonged to neither the Provisional nor Official IRA. Within 48 hours 104 were released.


On the day of the march some 10,000 people had gathered in Creggan Estate and proceeded towards Guildhall Square in the centre of the city. Paratroopers had sealed off the approaches to the square and the march organisers, in order to avoid trouble, led most of the demonstrators towards Free Derry Corner in the Bogside.

Groups of local youths stayed behind at the army barricades to confront the soldiers. Their orders were to move in and arrest as many of the rioters as possible. At 4.07pm 1 Para requested permission to arrest rioters. At 4.10pm soldiers opened fire on the crowd. Less than 30 minutes later 13 civilians were dead.

The soldiers claimed that they had been fired on as they moved in to make arrests. The people of the Bogside believed the army had summarily executed 13 unarmed civilians.


Unfortunately I suspect it would be very easy for us to get into either of these situations in Iraq. In fact a small version of the second situation already occurred a few weeks ago when we killed two people in a protest march when they started throwing rocks at some of our troops.


How can Israel identify specific terrorist leaders, track their movements, and kill them and their entourages with stunning accuracy yet we cannot seem to track down gangs of Saddams mujahadeen and must resort to terroristic techniques of our own to smoke them out?

The situation is not the same. Israel has occupied the West Bank for 30 years. If we're still occupying Iraq in 30 years (heaven forbid!), I would imagine our intelligence will be much better than it is now. Israel also doesn't bother trying to win the hearts and minds of the people and they generally aren't concerned with civilian casualties--we are, so we're operating in a much more restrained manner. Finally the West Bank and Gaza Strip are much, much smaller than Iraq. Israel has much higher troop density there than we do in Iraq and their intelligence services have a much smaller area they have to worry about.


Regardless of the thousands of weapons we may confiscate, weapons will still end up in the hands of Iraqis who choose to loot the populace, kill americans, or simply protect themselves. It seems to me that laying the groundwork for a democratic system would include allowing the citizens the the dignity of self-protection. Imasculating them to 'subdue' the country is only serving to create more opposition to our efforts.

You may be right on this. Personally I just don't know what the best way to handle the situation is. We definitely don't want this thing falling apart on us like the situation in Northern Ireland did. At the same time, not only are our opponents targeting our troops, they're now also attacking people who are cooperating with us. You can argue that arming those who are cooperating with us might help. However, many of those helping us aren't necessarily trained to fight and a weapon might not be that useful. I doubt for example that the Iraqi engineer in charge of Baghdad water/power systems who was killed a week or so ago would have been able to fend of her multiple attackers even if she had been armed. If we don't do anything and our opponents continue to harass and kill our supporters and our troops, we're going to be in trouble. If we do take action, we need to be very careful that it is thought through very carefully and we consider both the "soft" social implications as well as the "hard" military implications of our actions.

[hermyhermit]

I think we need to hear more from the Swiss on this subject....aren't they all armed? Don't they have the lowest gun crime statistics in the world? Isn't that why Hitler balked at going into Sweeden?


The Swiss rolled over for Hitler like good dogs as did the Swedes. Though the Swiss moreso, they were major supporters and the Swedes in true spineless neutral style capitulated as well. God bless their neutral hearts!

They do have a well-armed society however and if I tell you why I think that that country who is armed to the teeth is able to control themselves I will be labeled racist so I'm just going to keep quiet for now.

Consider that Somalis are well-armed as a society and they live in crime-ridden warlord controlled squalor. The Swiss do not have this problem. I'll let the race defenders rise up now and wave the flag of multicult at me.

[Kalle]

I see Swede-bashing season is coming up, so I just want to remind all you Americans that you yourself did absolutely nothing for three years while Hitler rampaged across Europe, until Germany declared war on you. You shouldn't throw rocks in a glass house.


The Swiss come from Switzerland, Swedes come from Sweden.

It's funny how many people are confused by this. I got lucky once when a cashier at a Spanish bank make this mistake and thought that my Swedish kronor I wanted to exchange for pesetas were Swiss francs. I did not inform her of her mistake. :)