NationStates Jolt Archive

Gun supporters say that if everyone had a gun then there would be less crime.

I was wondering (as it follows a similar line of thought as the above sentence):

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?

I especially want to hear the responses of the gun supporters. Hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.

Gun supporters say that if everyone had a gun then there would be less crime.

I was wondering (as it follows a similar line of thought as the above sentence):

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?

I especially want to hear the responses of the gun supporters. Hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.

If every citizen in Iraq was armed then terrorist activity would be more difficult.
However, it would also be more difficult for the Occupying forces to tell terrorists frim inocent citizens.

Gun supporters say that if everyone had a gun then there would be less crime.

I was wondering (as it follows a similar line of thought as the above sentence):

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?

I especially want to hear the responses of the gun supporters. Hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.
You know better than that! Sheesh!

Anyone in Iraq who truly wants a weapon can find one relatively easily. Beyond that, I'm sure you realize that there are a number of significant differences between Iraq and the US, not the least of which is that Americans almost universeally subscribe to "the rule of law." In many parts of Iraq, there is no law to speak of. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?
Dude, I'm a soldier in Iraq. Damn near every family in Iraq DOES have a gun - while we confiscate anything BIG, and take all but 1 AK-47 if a family has more than one, there isn't exactly a scarcity of automatic weapons in Iraq...

You know better than that! Sheesh!

Anyone in Iraq who truly wants a weapon can find one relatively easily. Beyond that, I'm sure you realize that there are a number of significant differences between Iraq and the US, not the least of which is that Americans almost universeally subscribe to "the rule of law." In many parts of Iraq, there is no law to speak of. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

My opinion exactly but I wanted to see what others think.

(Thanks for saying I know better. I do. :) )

My opinion exactly but I wanted to see what others think.

(Thanks for saying I know better. I do. :) )
Well, DUH! I read your posts. Most are well done, with the occassional dementia requisite for all General posters tossed into the mix now and again. :D

Dude, I'm a soldier in Iraq. Damn near every family in Iraq DOES have a gun - while we confiscate anything BIG, and take all but 1 AK-47 if a family has more than one, there isn't exactly a scarcity of automatic weapons in Iraq...

This is what I have read also, that most families posses a weapon, usually an AK. I would be curious to know how many non-terrorist crimes occur. Run of the mill murders for money or jealousy, involving the use of these weapons. I have no information about this but I suspect the numbers would be low. Grabbing your AK to go kill yourr ex-girlfriend cause you're mad wouldn't seem a good choice considering one of her family members could then grab their AK and return fire.

It goes only as far as respect for the Rule of Law. If power overrides law, or the law is too weak to assert itself over those with power, then the more armed the population, the more anarchic things get. However, if respect for the law exists despite the presence of such power, then armed populations have no effect on law and order.

In Iraq, rule of law is broken down to a fair degree. Thus the power that guns provide is a serious risk to the rule of law; this would make Iraq harder to patrol, occupy, pacify.

The opportunity for vigilantee justice to lead to civil war is not a boon to US aims. The fact that seeing an armed induvidual is not a clear indication of hostile intent makes IDing threats extremely difficult for US troops. As such, US goals are hindered by having an armed population in Iraq right now.

However, if the rule of law was once again introduced, enforced and made respectable by the Iraqi government; an armed population would go a long way to stabilizing the nation quickly.

Well, DUH! I read your posts. Most are well done, with the occassional dementia requisite for all General posters tossed into the mix now and again. :D

*nodnods*

BTW all those times I was bad at posting can be blamed entirely on lack of sleep and gremlins. :D

This is what I have read also, that most families posses a weapon, usually an AK. I would be curious to know how many non-terrorist crimes occur. Run of the mill murders for money or jealousy, involving the use of these weapons. I have no information about this but I suspect the numbers would be low. Grabbing your AK to go kill yourr ex-girlfriend cause you're mad wouldn't seem a good choice considering one of her family members could then grab their AK and return fire.

Well in islamic countries these sort of crimes are usually low anyway (especially if the offender risks getting body parts cut off :D ). I would really like to see stats in those countries as well. Although these stats would have to be done using a western standard to be compared fairly with a western country.

That's probably asking too much from the internets.

Well in islamic countries these sort of crimes are usually low anyway (especially if the offender risks getting body parts cut off :D ). I would really like to see stats in those countries as well. Although these stats would have to be done using a western standard to be compared fairly with a western country.

That's probably asking too much from the internets.

Yeah, I would suspect a low crime count, also a low count of ex-girlfriends and boyfriends. Money murders maybe more. (Money murders maybe more. Sighted sub sank same. heh heh)

as already noted most iraqi's are armed, the problem is weather or not they want to get involved to actually stop the insurgents. which is more of an intelligence issue than a firearms ownership issue in iraq.
;)

as already noted most iraqi's are armed, the problem is weather or not they want to get involved to actually stop the insurgents. which is more of an intelligence issue than a firearms ownership issue in iraq.
;)
Yes, the intelligent ones let everyone shoot everyone else, then dive in later to pick up the pieces once the gunfire dies down.

There have already been incidents of Iraqi civilians fighting terrorists.

*nodnods*

BTW all those times I was bad at posting can be blamed entirely on lack of sleep and gremlins. :D
Uh huh! :D

[ writes that one down for future reference ] :D

There have already been incidents of Iraqi civilians fighting terrorists.
got a link for that?

There have already been incidents of Iraqi civilians fighting terrorists.

I just want a clear-cut definition of terrorist! Please, tell me. How is a terrorist different from a civilian with a gun, or from a freedom fighter, or from a soldier in a non-state army. Is the difference just who he shoots at?

Aren't most of the "terrorists" there Iraqi civilians with explosives? And isn't the rest civilians from other countries? After all they're no military personell or anything like that. (Which is why, conveniently enough, one apparently doesn't have to adhere to international law when one captures them...)
How would they be legally different from a French Resistánce member in 1943?

As for when everyone has a gun, there would be just the same amount of insurgent activity.
Families with rifles will be unwilling to go out and shoot people and risk being shot themselves.
"Terrorists" don't give a shit whether they're being shot at in the process. Often they'd be quite ready to accept being shot (especially the suicide bombers. although i'd imagine they'd feel a certain sense of failure...)
And as was said, the ones who want one have one already.

hell yea, if every iraqi had a gun the american terrorists would be forced into retreat in no time

The point is not how much activity, the point is what that activity can achieve, both in terms of physical damage, and deaths, and in political damage.

To the latter, the terrorists in Iraq have failed, the election proved that. To the former, armed civilians can reduce the damage, and deaths, which are already greatly disproportionate (more terrorists die, than the innocent Iraqis they target)

"Is the difference just who he shoots at?"

Yes, and who is served. A soldier of a nation state by definition, represents and fights for his community, a terrorist attempts to destroy the community he's in by targetting its innocents.

"Terrorists don't give a shit whether they're being shot at in the process. Often they'd be quite ready to accept being shot (especially the suicide bombers. although i'd imagine they'd feel a certain sense of failure...)"

Leave the scare quotes to the juveniles.

The point, as I stated before, yes, terrorists don't care whether they live or die, but they do care that their operations are successful, just as the civilised world wants them to fail.

Whether a terrorist lives or dies is irrelevant, as long as he fails.

Gun supporters say that if everyone had a gun then there would be less crime.

I was wondering (as it follows a similar line of thought as the above sentence):

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?

I especially want to hear the responses of the gun supporters. Hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.
Terrorist attacks? Are you referring to the "terrorists" who invaded Iraq murdering tens of thousands in the process, or the "terrrorists" who are trying to expel them? Labelling all your enemies "terrorists" might make for good PR but it is conceptually dubious. Politicians, soldiers and police all use violence to terrorise people into doing what they're told. For instance, whenever someone's arrested (an act of violence) for using drugs, not paying taxes, or owning a firearm for self defence, that is terrorism just as much as when anybody who doesn't have a shiny badge and George Bush's approval uses violence towards political ends.

One reason I support gun ownership is that it allows defence against invaders. That's why Hitler never invaded Switzerland and it's why there aren't any US marines in Somalia anymore.

"That's why Hitler never invaded Switzerland"

Of course it couldn't be that the geography in Switzerland overwhelmingly favours defence, and Hitler'd gain nothing nothing in the invasion.

One reason I support gun ownership is that it allows defence against invaders. That's why Hitler never invaded Switzerland and it's why there aren't any US marines in Somalia anymore.

Umm...Hitler was in the planning stages of a Switzerland invasion, didn't you learn that in school? Moreover, all the other nations Hitler invaded had guns too. Its not like the Polish army was throwing sticks at the Panzers...

Hitler announced that he was going to invade Switzerland. Within 48 hours the Swiss had half a million armed men dug into the mountains and he changed his mind. That's how I was told it. The point stands eitherway, armed civilians deter invaders. Witness Vietnam and Somalia, not to mention the first US war of independence.

The geography in Russia favours defence but he invaded them.

The polish army isn't the point. Civilian gun ownership is.

The geography in Russia favours defence but he invaded them.

The polish army isn't the point. Civilian gun ownership is.

Two points. The geography in many parts of Russia does not favor defense, it favors mobile invaders...like the Mongols and the Germans. The climate however, is something else entirely. Add vastness to the mix and that's why Russia is difficult to govern for ANYONE, invader or not.

Civilian gun ownership matters not, determined resistance with the promise of an extended campaign combined with outside pressures mounting and poor logistical backing matters. Sometimes that determined resistance has taken the form of an armed populace, other times not so much.

"Witness Vietnam and Somalia"

Way more complex than civilian gun ownership.

"Within 48 hours the Swiss had half a million armed men dug into the mountains and he changed his mind."

Which proves my point, geography. Hitler would never have been able to get them out of there, short of nuking the whole place, which of course he could never do, because the Nazis didn't, and probably couldn't develop a bomb.

By the by, they weren't Swiss civilians, they were Army reservists. Switzerland is not really a case of civilian gun ownership, instead, the Government gives a gun to each able-bodied man, because Switzerland's defence is based upon conscription and training in peacetime, and quick call-up of reservists for war.

"The geography in Russia favours defence but he invaded them."

Only because its vast, and the climate means time is limited. Hitler's failure in Russia wasn't in geography, it was because he dithered (splitting Army Group Centre for Leningrad and the Ukraine, rather than going for Moscow), and because he failed to treat the inhabitants, who hated Stalin probably more than Hitler did, with respect.

Most Iraqi households have a gun, and did when Saddam was in power. It didn't make a difference then and doesn't seem to now.

Terrorist attacks? Are you referring to the "terrorists" who invaded Iraq murdering tens of thousands in the process

An invader is a conquerer, not a terrorist. Unless of course, no restraint outside of military objectives is shown.

or the "terrrorists" who are trying to expel them?
They are terrorists, not freedom fighters. No freedom fighter would kill their own civilians for the sake of freedom, freedom fighters show some restraint when you look at the overall picture, terrorists do not.


Labelling all your enemies "terrorists" might make for good PR but it is conceptually dubious.

No it's not.

Terrorist - One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
aeroflt.users.netlink.co.uk/definitions.htm

Politicians, soldiers and police all use violence to terrorise people into doing what they're told.

If you call enforcing the law terrorism them go ahead, but that is not the correft definition.

For instance, whenever someone's arrested (an act of violence)

The only time its violent is when the criminal will not cooperate. I have been arrested before and it was not an act of violence.

for using drugs, not paying taxes, or owning a firearm for self defence, that is terrorism just as much as when anybody who doesn't have a shiny badge and George Bush's approval uses violence towards political ends.

Isn't your whole post a fallacy of composition?

Gun supporters say that if everyone had a gun then there would be less crime.

I was wondering (as it follows a similar line of thought as the above sentence):

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?

I especially want to hear the responses of the gun supporters. Hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.

Well I think this is already pointed out here that it is already alot of guns in Iraq. But your ideas thas tried in Vietnam back in 64/65 didn't proof to be succefull if you put it mindly. (Well they there if you belive the guns was a really good they for the vietcong to get weapons)

Dude, I'm a soldier in Iraq. Damn near every family in Iraq DOES have a gun - while we confiscate anything BIG, and take all but 1 AK-47 if a family has more than one, there isn't exactly a scarcity of automatic weapons in Iraq...
What I "love" is that with all those fully automatic weapons in the hands of Iraqi civillians, the bad-guys' fav weapon is still the car bomb.

I guess those fully automatic weapons (you know, those mean ol' assault rifles that the Anti gun crowd complains about...) just aren't deadly enough...

What I "love" is that with all those fully automatic weapons in the hands of Iraqi civillians, the bad-guys' fav weapon is still the car bomb.

I guess those fully automatic weapons (you know, those mean ol' assault rifles that the Anti gun crowd complains about...) just aren't deadly enough...

The problem for most (but not all) Arabs in general is that their school of thought for shooting is standing up, and firing from the hip on full automatic.

You so rarely hit anything unless your in the same room with your target.

That, and unless you hit an American in an unarmored body location, you're not going to kill him.

Small observation: If your opponent is 100 yards away, and you see him start to fire from the hip, you have a few moments to carefully aim and blow him away. If you see him raise the rifle to his shoulder, and begin to use the sights, he knows what he's doing, and it would be best to take cover if you can't shoot him immediately.

An invader is a conquerer, not a terrorist. Unless of course, no restraint outside of military objectives is shown.
Depends how you define "terrorist". There's nothing sacred in a definition. I'd define one as "one who uses violence to influence the behaviour of others". In this case an invader is a terrorist. In fact, so is anyone who's willing to use self defence. It might be better not to use the word at all, unless and until you have a better definition. My whole point was that it is sheer propaganda to call the Iraqi resistance "terrorists" simply to cash in on the anger and hatred due to the WTC's destruction, and it hinders serious debate.

They are terrorists, not freedom fighters. No freedom fighter would kill their own civilians for the sake of freedom, freedom fighters show some restraint when you look at the overall picture, terrorists do not.
Collaborators, such as those Iraqis working as police and soldiers under the occupying regime, are often killed by freedom fighters. You talk of "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" as if there was a clear distinction. You may as well talk about "goodies" and "baddies". The US army kills civilians too. Far more than the "terrorists". Hiroshima springs to mind.

Terrorist - One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
aeroflt.users.netlink.co.uk/definitions.htm
Oh, here we go! So the only difference really is the shiny badge! The only difference between a soldier and a terrorist is one wears a uniform. Good. Glad we sorted that out. The fact that a group of governments signed an agreement to let themselves, literally, get away with murder makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. To treat people differently, let them away with and even applaud brutal acts of violence, simply because they have a uniform or because the govt says it's okay, is completely arbitrary.


If you call enforcing the law terrorism them go ahead, but that is not the correft definition.

Okay, we can take your "correct" definition. (like I said, there's nothing sacred about a definition). By your definition, the only difference between terrorists and police/military is the uniform. That's all. The action is the same whether you give it the same label or not.

The only time its violent is when the criminal will not cooperate. I have been arrested before and it was not an act of violence.
The same could be said of armed robbery and even rape. Again, it's a matter of definition. If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you do something I'd call that an act of agressive violence. You wouldn't. Fair enough. "Rape is only violent if you resist". An interesting point of view.

Isn't your whole post a fallacy of composition?
No. How would it be?

Oh, here we go! So the only difference really is the shiny badge! The only difference between a soldier and a terrorist is one wears a uniform. Good. Glad we sorted that out. The fact that a group of governments signed an agreement to let themselves, literally, get away with murder makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. To treat people differently, let them away with and even applaud brutal acts of violence, simply because they have a uniform or because the govt says it's okay, is completely arbitrary.
I'll only adress this one point.

Yes, the badge/uniform makes all the difference because it defines willing participants from unwilling victims. Terrorists are those who use innocents for "cover and concealment", intentionally using the innocent/unwilling as victim, shield and propaganda tool. When the terrorist operates in innocent/unwilling guise, he removes the onus of "untouchable" from them - whereas otherwise action taken against un-uniformed people would be punishable.

An example: Recent action in Iraq had a mad bomber attack a combined-forces (Iraqi Police/Us Army) patrol. The attack was undertaken in such a way as small children were injured in the blast. To a man, the Iraqi Street, Police and US soldiers involved wer not angry at the attackers for the attack, but that they carried it out in such a way as to maximize innocent/unwilling casualties. The attack could have just as easily taken place a block further up where there were no children, but that does not seem to occur to the Terrorists.

THAT is the difference between Terrorists and Soldiers. It is a Soldier's job to fight Soldiers, not un-uniformed, careless, calous, bastards whou use children as tools and shields.

Depends how you define "terrorist".

I already gave you a definition of terrorist for you.

There's nothing sacred in a definition.

We have dictionaries for a reason :rolleyes:

I'd define one as "one who uses violence to influence the behaviour of others".

That word would then apply to all people on the face of the earth, which is why we do not use that definition.

In this case an invader is a terrorist. In fact, so is anyone who's willing to use self defence.

Only if someone was stupid enough to let you use that definition.

It might be better not to use the word at all, unless and until you have a better definition.

I already gave you a defintion, while I guess you would be allowed to argue an incomplete defintion, it was still adequate.

My whole point was that it is sheer propaganda to call the Iraqi resistance "terrorists" simply to cash in on the anger and hatred due to the WTC's destruction, and it hinders serious debate.

What hinders this "serious" debate is your useage of the word terrorist.

Collaborators, such as those Iraqis working as police and soldiers under the occupying regime, are often killed by freedom fighters.

Wasn't I talking about civilians? Soldiers and police(well thats kinda fuzzy) are not exactly civilians.

You talk of "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" as if there was a clear distinction.

Because their is?

You may as well talk about "goodies" and "baddies".

:huhu:

The US army kills civilians too. Far more than the "terrorists". Hiroshima springs to mind.

Ever here of accidental causulaties? And trying to over simplify Hiroshima does not make you an adequate debater at all. It was decided that to end the war, without a full scale land invasion inwhich would have killed millions more civilians, that the bomb would be dropped. The lesser of two evils and irrelevent in this debate.

Oh, here we go! So the only difference really is the shiny badge!

When police officers suicide bomb in the middle of a dense crowd I might allow you to say that.

The only difference between a soldier and a terrorist is one wears a uniform. Good. Glad we sorted that out.

You and your inability to comprehend words :rolleyes:

The fact that a group of governments signed an agreement to let themselves, literally, get away with murder makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.

Source Mr/ Self Rightous?

To treat people differently, let them away with and even applaud brutal acts of violence, simply because they have a uniform or because the govt says it's okay, is completely arbitrary.

I think you are becoming deluted. Saying such random and stupid things out of nowhere because of a dictionary definition?


Okay, we can take your "correct" definition.

If its in a dictionary.

(like I said, there's nothing sacred about a definition).

Because a soft means hard :huhu:

By your definition, the only difference between terrorists and police/military is the uniform. That's all. The action is the same whether you give it the same label or not.

As I said, when police officers strap bombs to their chests and deonated in the middle of a football games, maybe you and your assinine definition will apply.

The same could be said of armed robbery and even rape.

No it can't.

Again, it's a matter of definition.

Only in your world.

If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you do something I'd call that an act of agressive violence. You wouldn't. Fair enough.

I never said such a thing, and for you to infere such proves my point.

"Rape is only violent if you resist". An interesting point of view.

You have to say no for it to be rape. And its not my point of view "God.":rolleyes:

No. How would it be?
Oh i'm sorry, I meant Equivocation, but I guess in this case it isn't.

You know better than that! Sheesh!

Anyone in Iraq who truly wants a weapon can find one relatively easily. Beyond that, I'm sure you realize that there are a number of significant differences between Iraq and the US, not the least of which is that Americans almost universeally subscribe to "the rule of law." In many parts of Iraq, there is no law to speak of. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
You are aware, that at the present time, there is very severe gun control in Iraq (Bremer's Orders), and extremely severe penalties for violations of gun laws?

Example:

Section 6 (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031231_CPAORD3_REV__AMD_.pdf)

Penalties

1) Firearms or Military Weapons, including Special Category Weapons, possession or use of which is unauthorized, are subject to confiscation by Coalition Forces and other relevant authorities.

2) Any person in violation of this Order may be detained, arrested, and prosecuted. If convicted, all lawful punishments may be adjudged, and the following terms of imprisonment will apply:

a. For the conviction of unauthorized possession, transport, distribution, sale, or use of a Military Weapon, excluding Special Category Weapons, a minimum term of imprisonment of 6 months and maximum term of imprisonment of life
imprisonment.

b. For the conviction of possession, transport, distribution, sale, or use of a Special Category Weapon, a minimum term of imprisonment of 30 years, unless the proviso at paragraph 3 applies, and maximum term of imprisonment of life imprisonment. Where a person may be convicted of another offense relating to the use of a Special Category Weapon, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 30 years, unless the proviso at paragraph 3 applies, shall also be applied to that conviction.

3) The mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 30 years is subject to the proviso that in exceptional circumstances relating to the offender or the offense, the punishment may be reduced. The transport, distribution, sale or use of a Special Category Weapon shall never constitute exceptional circumstances.

4) Except as provided in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Section, sentences for convictions of offenses under this Order or the Iraqi Weapons Code 1992 and which involve Military Weapons, including Special Category Weapons, may not be reduced as a result of mitigating excuse pursuant to paragraph 130 of the Penal Code. Persons convicted of committing these offenses shall not be eligible for Conditional Discharge as set forth in paragraph 331 of the Criminal Proceedings Law.

5) For the purposes of this Order, sentences of life imprisonment shall mean the remaining natural life of the person.

Section 4

General Prohibitions

1) Unauthorized possession, transport, distribution, or use of Firearms or Military Weapons, including Special Category Weapons, is prohibited.

2) Other than as provided for in Section 3, no person shall possess or use any Firearms or Military Weapons, including Special Category Weapons, in public places.

3) Other than by Coalition Forces and duly authorized Iraqi security forces whose duty position requires the carrying of concealed weapons in the course of their duties, the carrying of concealed weapons is prohibited.

4) All sales of Firearms and Military Weapons are prohibited, except as authorized by the CPA.

Not so easy?

You are aware, that at the present time, there is very severe gun control in Iraq (Bremer's Orders), and extremely severe penalties for violations of gun laws?


Canuck, I thought you said that gun control works, and that people will just turn in their guns if we pass the laws...

Canuck, I thought you said that gun control works, and that people will just turn in their guns if we pass the laws...
I guess the biggest problem is that there was way too many guns in Iraq in the first place?

And yes, I do believe that over time, gun control works, and in the short term, it appears that the CPA & US occupiers realize that more guns = more dead people, hence Bremer's Order for gun control.

You are aware, that at the present time, there is very severe gun control in Iraq (Bremer's Orders), and extremely severe penalties for violations of gun laws?

<snip>Penalties

1) Firearms or Military Weapons, including Special Category Weapons, possession or use of which is unauthorized, are subject to confiscation by Coalition Forces and other relevant authorities.
<snip>
Originally Posted by Jalula: Dude, I'm a soldier in Iraq. Damn near every family in Iraq DOES have a gun - while we confiscate anything BIG, and take all but 1 AK-47 if a family has more than one, there isn't exactly a scarcity of automatic weapons in Iraq... Ok, since I'm not ready to call Jalula a lying bastard just yet (since I can't prove his actual military status one way or another) it seems that Iraqi citizens are authorized to have at least one AK-47 lying around for general purposes. Doesn't sound all that strict to me, since I'm not even allowed that...

Not so easy? Nope. Sure doesn't look that way...

It will hinder the abilities of terrorists, because its harder to terrorize someone equipped with a gun.

Im not going to say who is or is not a terrorist, except that I feel anyone who uses terror as a method of control is a terrorist. This can include insurgents, who will attempt to kill anyone who collaberates with the coalition. This can include the coalition, who will attempt to arrest or kill anyone who collaberates with the insurgency. Not judging, simply saying that you can look at it both ways.

Ok, since I'm not ready to call Jalula a lying bastard just yet (since I can't prove his actual military status one way or another) it seems that Iraqi citizens are authorized to have at least one AK-47 lying around for general purposes. Doesn't sound all that strict to me, since I'm not even allowed that...
Well according to Bremer's Orders, neither are Iraqis, unless they get approval for them, which I imagine is fairly difficult since an AK47 can fire 600 rounds per minute. They sure would be tough on the body armour?

Well according to Bremer's Orders, neither are Iraqis, unless they get approval for them, which I imagine is fairly difficult since an AK47 can fire 600 rounds per minute. They sure would be tough on the body armour?

7.62x39mm? Not really.

I guess the biggest problem is that there was way too many guns in Iraq in the first place?

And yes, I do believe that over time, gun control works, and in the short term, it appears that the CPA & US occupiers realize that more guns = more dead people, hence Bremer's Order for gun control.

Something else to consider, Canuck.

The vast majority of US casualties and deaths are caused by improvised explosive devices. When insurgents get into firefights or stand-up fights with US troops, it goes rather badly for the insurgents.

There are several reasons for this. Iraqis are very poor shots (in general), although social Darwinism is selecting out those who shoot poorly. And if they actually hit a US soldier, you have to penetrate the Interceptor Body Armor.

You could, on an off chance, get hit in the face, or perhaps in an upper leg artery. But this is very infrequent (less than 8 percent of hits). Most hits (55 percent) are directly on the chest armor, which is impenetrable to rifle rounds up to and including 308 Winchester and 30-06 armor piercing rounds.

That's why the insurgents use car bombs and roadside bombs. They learned in Fallujah that if you stand and fight, the US soldiers can walk in and beat the crap out of you while taking very few casualties - even if they use infantry in house to house fighting.

While the Israelis took 10 dead for every 1 Hezbollah killed in similar fighting (insurgents fighting to death), the Israelis didn't have the body armor. They had the same sophisticated fire support.

But in Fallujah, we killed 28 insurgents for every 1 US soldier. The average is improving even as we speak. They have learned that you don't want to stick around shooting when the Americans show up.

Zarqawi even made a taped announcement that this tactic of bombing is what they MUST do, even if it means killing hundreds or thousands of Muslims - because it's the only tactic they have now.

Gun supporters say that if everyone had a gun then there would be less crime.

I was wondering (as it follows a similar line of thought as the above sentence):

If every citizen in Iraq were given a gun, would terrorist attacks cease (or at least decrease)?

I especially want to hear the responses of the gun supporters. Hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.

According to her (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com), there are currently few families that don't possess a gun, mainly because there is apparently quite a danger from looters and terrorists.

I am personally a strong supporter of gun control, and I am repulsed by the idea of guns being a household appliance in any pacified nation. The United States is, relatively speaking. Americans don't need to worry about terrorists or scavengers breaking into their home at night and abducting/shooting people.

Iraqis do. They need those guns; they don't have them for fun, not for hunting and not for showing off. This need - and even more so the paranoia of the US forces, who shoot people on suspicion - makes them responsible gun owners. They're not likely to be careless with a weapon.

So, in conclusion: Yes, in Iraq of all places, at this time, a gun in every household would increase safety. And I doubt this is true for any other country, especially not in the western world.

According to her (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com), there are currently few families that don't possess a gun, mainly because there is apparently quite a danger from looters and terrorists.

I am personally a strong supporter of gun control, and I am repulsed by the idea of guns being a household appliance in any pacified nation. The United States is, relatively speaking. Americans don't need to worry about terrorists or scavengers breaking into their home at night and abducting/shooting people.

Iraqis do. They need those guns; they don't have them for fun, not for hunting and not for showing off. This need - and even more so the paranoia of the US forces, who shoot people on suspicion - makes them responsible gun owners. They're not likely to be careless with a weapon.

So, in conclusion: Yes, in Iraq of all places, at this time, a gun in every household would increase safety. And I doubt this is true for any other country, especially not in the western world.

I know 104 women, Aeruillin, who would disagree with you. They have been stalked and beaten and raped by ex-husbands.

This has stopped for the past two years - because they have guns and the ex-husbands know it. It has demonstrably increased their safety, especially when compared with the women in my area in similar situations who rely only on the police for protection.