NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Iraqis have the right to keep and bear arms?

I think they should have Popeye arms myself... those are neat.


Do I make you a little horny?

Should Iraqis have the right to keep and bear arms?

I think they should have Popeye arms myself... those are neat.


Do I make you a little horny?

More proof that Popeye is a Terrorist. I hate that Spinach Muncher.

Should Iraqis be able to arm bears?

That's the real question.

No. They'll just run around killing each other randomly. Once we set up a functional government in Iraq, once the infrastructure is good to go, and once there is law and order i the country, then we can give them arms.

Should Iraqis be able to arm bears?

That's the real question.


Not if Stephen Colbert has anything to do with it. Unless its a cole bear. *chuckles with a sense of satisfaction as his awesome joke*

Either you're double posting or spamming. Either way, continue.

they've got more need of them than your average american that's for sure.

I voted no because I don't see the Iraqi's as a civilized nation. Once they act civilized and weed away from their barbaric tactics then yes. Law Enforcement must be established as well as a functioning governmental body. First most though they need to start acting like civilized people.

Should Iraqis have the right to keep and bear arms?

Yes

I think they should have Popeye arms myself... those are neat.

It would work OK w/ robes. Tight shirts would be a bitch to get on and off.


Do I make you a little horny?

Send me some "art" shots and we'll see. :)

No. They'll just run around killing each other randomly. Once we set up a functional government in Iraq, once the infrastructure is good to go, and once there is law and order i the country, then we can give them arms.

yeh, cuz iraqis are all mindless psychopaths :rolleyes:

No. They'll just run around killing each other randomly. Once we set up a functional government in Iraq, once the infrastructure is good to go, and once there is law and order i the country, then we can give them arms.

They're already armed. The CPA allowed each household to keep one AK in the home. The current government has not tried to disarm them.

I voted no because I don't see the Iraqi's as a civilized nation. Once they act civilized and weed away from their barbaric tactics then yes. Law Enforcement must be established as well as a functioning governmental body. First most though they need to start acting like civilized people.

are you civilized?

No. They'll just run around killing each other randomly. Once we set up a functional government in Iraq, once the infrastructure is good to go, and once there is law and order i the country, then we can give them arms.


So you don't think that Iraqis shouldnt be able to decide how to protect themselves and that they need someone to regulate when and how they do so?

What makes Iraqis the type of people that would "run around and kill each other randomly"?

I voted no because I don't see the Iraqi's as a civilized nation. Once they act civilized and weed away from their barbaric tactics then yes. Law Enforcement must be established as well as a functioning governmental body. First most though they need to start acting like civilized people.


What exactly would you have to see happen in Iraq to believe that they are a civilized nation?

What are these barbaric tactics you speak of?

Do you believe that the US needs to regulate firearms?

Yes



It would work OK w/ robes. Tight shirts would be a bitch to get on and off.




Send me some "art" shots and we'll see. :)


Should they be limited to the types of weapons they can own or should they get to have whatever weapons they see fit to own and can afford?

*flashes you*

They're already armed. The CPA allowed each household to keep one AK in the home. The current government has not tried to disarm them.


just one? that would be interesting to see the Iraqi govt try to take away their guns in such a time of uncertainty regarding their security.

are you civilized?

Absolutely.

More proof that Popeye is a Terrorist. I hate that Spinach Muncher.

He's probably got E. Coli from spinach munching too.

just one? that would be interesting to see the Iraqi govt try to take away their guns in such a time of uncertainty regarding their security.

Just one. One is considered ok for home defense. More than one is a weapon stockpile.

Should they be limited to the types of weapons they can own or should they get to have whatever weapons they see fit to own and can afford?

I generally support the "red line" we have here in the US, Semi-auto and below, but w/ the number of fully-auto's in circulation , that probably wouldn't be feasible there. I don't support heavy weapons (medium MG's and up, Manpads, AT's, etc.)


*flashes you*

*Finds quiet place away from co-workers for a few minutes.*

if allowing all citizens to own guns (especially automatic weapons) would help curb a police state in the US, why didn't it work in Iraq?

Could the Iraqis also own other types of guns along with an AK?

Absolutely.

and what's your criteria?

if allowing all citizens to own guns (especially automatic weapons) would help curb a police state in the US, why didn't it work in Iraq?

That's when it get's into cultural differences. There's no hard and fast answer to that one. There are nations that allow fully auto weapons that are more stable and some that don't that are less. If we had a large collection of violent extremists in the US and a developing Gov't, it would most likely be a lot more chaotic here as well.

I generally support the "red line" we have here in the US, Semi-auto and below, but w/ the number of fully-auto's in circulation , that probably wouldn't be feasible there. I don't support heavy weapons (medium MG's and up, Manpads, AT's, etc.)


I agree.

What makes Iraqis the type of people that would "run around and kill each other randomly"?

Who knows? But around 100 people are dying each day for no reason at all in Iraq. They're like chickens with their heads cut off, running amok in the country. Not all of them are, of course, but a substantial part are. We need to close down Iraq's borders to prevent arms from getting shipped in and we also need to forcibly confiscate any arms we can find. We need to quell the unrest.

and what's your criteria?

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

That's when it get's into cultural differences. There's no hard and fast answer to that one. There are nations that allow fully auto weapons that are more stable and some that don't that are less. If we had a large collection of violent extremists in the US and a developing Gov't, it would most likely be a lot more chaotic here as well.

but we do have many anti-govt gun toting militias here in the US - another way of saying "violent extreemists" in my view. The Iraqi govt, during the time of Saddam, wasnt afraid of its people, despite having violent extreemists in their midst (or did they?), and were still able to pull off a repressive police state.

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

Ok.

Another use of civilization combines the first and fourth meanings of the word, implying that a complex society is naturally superior to less complex societies. This point of view has been used to justify racism and imperialism; powerful societies have often believed it was their right to "civilize," or culturally dominate, weaker ones ("barbarians")

Oh look. It's your raison d'etre. How appropriate.

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

keep on reading,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Problems_with_the_term_.22civilization.22

Who knows? But around 100 people are dying each day for no reason at all in Iraq. They're like chickens with their heads cut off, running amok in the country. Not all of them are, of course, but a substantial part are. We need to close down Iraq's borders to prevent arms from getting shipped in and we also need to forcibly confiscate any arms we can find. We need to quell the unrest.

for no reason at all? You've got to be kiddign me.

If you pay attention to what the US's top brass are saying: Iraqis are the ones fighting agtainst US troops and AQ are the ones targetting civilians. At least thats what was happening in teh beginning of the insurgency (first coupel of years). Now that they are descending in civil war because of the power struggle that the US has created, they are fighting against each other (militia against militia; death squad against death squad) but it isnt for anything... it's for Iraqs oil wealth.

They're already armed. The CPA allowed each household to keep one AK in the home. The current government has not tried to disarm them.
Hmm an AK in every household. I heard they cost like 20 bucks over there.

but we do have many anti-govt gun toting militias here in the US - another way of saying "violent extreemists" in my view. The Iraqi govt, during the time of Saddam, wasnt afraid of its people, despite having violent extreemists in their midst (or did they?), and were still able to pull off a repressive police state.

Actually, the number of the violent ones is minute. The majority of them (especially the larger ones) are "anti-govt' only in the sense they don't like the way the latest administrations have been taking things and push for voting, political rallies, etc but are prepared JIC. They also try and help out in disasters, S&R, etc.

Saddam also had his death squads, goons, and a loyal military leadership to crush any opposition to him (remember the Kurds)? Were that to happen here, the military would divide (mostly for the people I hope) and at least some of the armed citizenry would oppose those measures.

Hmm an AK in every household. I heard they cost like 20 bucks over there.

If that. (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/iraq/images/051904_guns.jpg)

are you civilized?

I know I am not.

I voted yes. Seems to me, with the problems they are having with the police being as bad or worse than the insurgents, have the means to defend their homes would be damned important.

Obviously, you can go high end (http://www.crupi.net/Army-SH-guns2A.JPG) as well.

To the OP:

I believe NO-ONE should have the right to bear arms outside of the police and military forces. School shootings in America give weight to my arguement methinks.

...they are fighting against each other (militia against militia; death squad against death squad) but it isnt for anything... it's for Iraqs oil wealth.

Yeah, that's why most of the deaths are centered around Baghdad -- I'm sure there are copious oil deposits there. Oh, wait -- there's practically no oil there! Maybe they're just killing each other because they are crazed, extremist, Islamo-fascist fanatics!

Yeah, that's why most of the deaths are centered around Baghdad -- I'm sure there are copious oil deposits there. Oh, wait -- there's practically no oil there! Maybe they're just killing each other because they are crazed, extremist, Islamo-fascist fanatics!

oh come on, you're not really that stupid are you?

Yeah, that's why most of the deaths are centered around Baghdad -- I'm sure there are copious oil deposits there. Oh, wait -- there's practically no oil there! Maybe they're just killing each other because they are crazed, extremist, Islamo-fascist fanatics!

For you, the projector is broken at the great orientation seminar of life.

To the OP:

I believe NO-ONE should have the right to bear arms outside of the police and military forces. School shootings in America give weight to my arguement methinks.

It does make your arguement sink like a stone. The number of school shootings pales in comparison to the number of defensive uses of firearms. The school shootings give more weight to restricting the media from encouraging copycats and video games for encouraging violence.

It does make your arguement sink like a stone. The number of school shootings pales in comparison to the number of defensive uses of firearms. The school shootings give more weight to restricting the media from encouraging copycats and video games for encouraging violence.

And what of the number of gang related killings? etc. that was just an arguement....there are many. If guns are not freely available then the number of shootings will drastically drop (I'm not that stupid to believe that no-one will obtain guns wether legal or not).

Yeah, that's why most of the deaths are centered around Baghdad -- I'm sure there are copious oil deposits there. Oh, wait -- there's practically no oil there! Maybe they're just killing each other because they are crazed, extremist, Islamo-fascist fanatics!

OK now I know you are a jokester. As if I need to tell you that fighting for political power to gain oil wealth isnt going to happen on the oil fields.

You funny (God I hope you were tryign to be funny) guy.

oh come on, you're not really that stupid are you?

If my thesis was that inane, you should easily be able to craft a refutation. Instead, you are bickering with ad hominem arguments -- you're really not that stupid that you need to sling insults, are you?

It does make your arguement sink like a stone. The number of school shootings pales in comparison to the number of defensive uses of firearms. The school shootings give more weight to restricting the media from encouraging copycats and video games for encouraging violence.

how many people actually kill people because they saw it in a movie or video game?

Dont go all Hillary Clinton on us now.

You funny (God I hope you were tryign to be funny) guy.

I don't find the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq perpetrated by religious fanatics funny -- I don't see how you find it even slightly humorous.

Keep and have arms, OF COURSE. Bear arms... in public? Why? Do they need to in the shining beacon of liberty that is the new Iraq??? Have, sure. Bear, Columbine or 9/11 in a mini-scale. And no, I don't say that because I think muslims are loose with their guns, I say that because I KNOW people are.

how many people actually kill people because they saw it in a movie or video game?

Dont go all Hillary Clinton on us now.

People that do are predisposed to that kinda thing anyway (psycho's). I grew up listening to NWA, heavy metal etc. watching horror/violent films and playing games from an early age and I've never done anything remotely bad. To me that's a non-arguement. :)

If my thesis was that inane, you should easily be able to craft a refutation. Instead, you are bickering with ad hominem arguments -- you're really not that stupid that you need to sling insults, are you?

i'm only just getting over my flabbergastedness at you're previous post. but i honestly don't think it warrants any more than what has already been said in response.

p.s. using latin doesn't make you sound more intelligent

I don't find the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq perpetrated by religious fanatics funny -- I don't see how you find it even slightly humorous.

It's not. It's just that the insinuation of your post was so absurd that no serious answer was warranted. It's as though you believe that no-one's fighting over oil unless they're having a shoot-out at an oil rig.

Ad hominem indeed. You've got to prove yourself a man before using that line.

I don't find the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq perpetrated by religious fanatics funny -- I don't see how you find it even slightly humorous.

I'm talking about how you think fighting for political power/oil wealth needs to be done where the oil is. Did I really have to spell that out for you after spelling it out for you? Now you have me worried that were were actually serious. :confused:

wow. Triple rebuttal.

Ka-pow!

It's as though you believe that no-one's fighting over oil unless they're having a shoot-out at an oil rig.

And I have a new signature.

I don't find the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq perpetrated by religious fanatics funny -- I don't see how you find it even slightly humorous

It's not. It's just that the insinuation of your post was so absurd that no serious answer was warranted. It's as though you believe that no-one's fighting over oil unless they're having a shoot-out at an oil rig.

That's also how I read MeansToAnEnd's post.

And what of the number of gang related killings? etc. that was just an arguement....there are many. If guns are not freely available then the number of shootings will drastically drop (I'm not that stupid to believe that no-one will obtain guns wether legal or not).

So the few thousand illegal uses of firearms equates to the tens of millions owned w/o being used in crime?

And I have a new signature.

And I'm touched.

how many people actually kill people because they saw it in a movie or video game?

Dont go all Hillary Clinton on us now.

Of course not, I was being sarcastic. Blaming the object and not the person.

So the few thousand illegal uses of firearms equates to the tens of millions owned w/o being used in crime?

Before we get deeper into this it would be good to have some stats for shooting's in America. If as you say it is a few thousand, then that would be a few thousand people less shot, which surely is a good thing.

Brazil 2005 - 38,000 gun related killings (second highest in the world)

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051031/asp/opinion/story_5410455.asp

(still looking for US figures).

Before we get deeper into this it would be good to have some stats for shooting's in America. If as you say it is a few thousand, then that would be a few thousand people less shot, which surely is a good thing.


Here's some:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Now explain why it decreased while ownership increased? Explain how hundreds of thousands of crimes prevented and lives saved by defensively using firearms is somehow less important than punishing people who haven't committed crimes w/ firearms.

Brazil 2005 - 38,000 gun related killings (second highest in the world)

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051031/asp/opinion/story_5410455.asp

(still looking for US figures).

And tight restrictions of firearms. High crime, corrupt Gov't and police. Go figure.

(still looking for US figures).Stop already. Yes, USA has most guns per capita before Yemen and Finland... all guns are not used to commit homicides. Now, only in USA we have have those rampaging... [stops semi-hilarious act]

Guns are just metal and wood. It's attitude that makes metal and wood a killer. That's why we prefer knives here.

Before we get deeper into this it would be good to have some stats for shooting's in America. If as you say it is a few thousand, then that would be a few thousand people less shot, which surely is a good thing.

Ok. here's (http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/Gun%20Violence%20Fact%20Sheet%2Epdf) some stats for shootings in America.

It's notoriously difficult to find similar stats for Iraq (since they normally figure as 'mass killings', hence are reported alongside bomb blasts), but this (http://timlambert.org/2003/11/iraq/) could help move the discussion foward, seeing as it's talking about the topic and all.

I'm talking about how you think fighting for political power/oil wealth needs to be done where the oil is. Did I really have to spell that out for you after spelling it out for you? Now you have me worried that were were actually serious. :confused:

Hmm...let's see. They're fighting over oil, which is located fairly far away from Baghdad, therefore control of Baghdad ought to be a central objective? Heh. The US is stringently controlling the sources of oil, and they are well-defended against penetration. Also, political power cannot be bought at the barrel of a gun -- killing a few people out of millions is not going to turn the tide in your favour. The truth is that they are crazed fanatics, pure and simple.

Ok. here's (http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/Gun%20Violence%20Fact%20Sheet%2Epdf) some stats for shootings in America.

It's notoriously difficult to find similar stats for Iraq (since they normally figure as 'mass killings', hence are reported alongside bomb blasts), but this (http://timlambert.org/2003/11/iraq/) could help move the discussion foward, seeing as it's talking about the topic and all.

And a few more for the US.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Print.pdf

US:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/578245/posts

:Everyday, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover –- 15 do not.

The majority of fatal accidents involving a firearm occur in the home.

Gunshot wounds are the single most common cause of death for women in the home, accounting for nearly half of all homicides and 42 percent of suicides.

An adolescent is twice as likely to commit suicide if a gun is kept in the home.

More teenage boys in America die from gunfire than from car accidents.

Gunshot wounds are now the leading cause of death for teenage boys in America (white, African-American, urban, suburban).

Further reasonings for my arguement of no-one bearing arms outside of military and police forces.

Hmm...let's see. They're fighting over oil, which is located fairly far away from Baghdad, therefore control of Baghdad ought to be a central objective? Heh. The US is stringently controlling the sources of oil, and they are well-defended against penetration. Also, political power cannot be bought at the barrel of a gun -- killing a few people out of millions is not going to turn the tide in your favour. The truth is that they are crazed fanatics, pure and simple.

violent coups, revolutions and civil wars have never happened in MTAEs universe apparently

Should Iraqis have the right to keep and bear arms?

I think they should have Popeye arms myself... those are neat.


Do I make you a little horny?

oh hell no. they should be confined to long sleeve shirts! Keep their ARMS unbeared!

If I wanted to live ...why would I give a shit ?

Stop already. Yes, USA has most guns per capita before Yemen and Finland... all guns are not used to commit homicides. Now, only in USA we have have those rampaging... [stops semi-hilarious act]

Guns are just metal and wood. It's attitude that makes metal and wood a killer. That's why we prefer knives here.

True, but easy availability gives would-be killers an easy way of killin'. Plus people's attitude towards gun ownership makes me cringe, the whole "how can I protect myself without a gun" mentality.

/rant - bed.

US:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/578245/posts



Further reasonings for my arguement of no-one bearing arms outside of military and police forces.


Right. 75 "children" in reports listing them as up to 26 years old. Try again.

violent coups and civil wars have never happened in MTAEs universe apparently

They have, but not for economic reasons relating to control of the supply of oil. That objective cannot be accomplished by the sectarian butchers in Iraq. They are fighting for domination of Iraq, and their fight is fueled by religious differences and funded by Iran.

True, but easy availability gives would-be killers an easy way of killin'. Plus people's attitude towards gun ownership makes me cringe, the whole "how can I protect myself without a gun" mentality.

/rant - bed.

So your belief in what people are thinking helps you to justify taking away people's property?

Right. 75 "children" in reports listing them as up to 26 years old. Try again.

if that's the only way you can find to carry on your argument after that post i contend that you have failed and should bow out gracefully.

Hmm...let's see. They're fighting over oil, which is located fairly far away from Baghdad, therefore control of Baghdad ought to be a central objective? Heh. The US is stringently controlling the sources of oil, and they are well-defended against penetration. Also, political power cannot be bought at the barrel of a gun -- killing a few people out of millions is not going to turn the tide in your favour. The truth is that they are crazed fanatics, pure and simple.

Actually, you're wrong. Ho-hum. Baghdad is almost slap-bang (http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/security/iraq/crude/oilfields.jpg)
on top of a supergiant oilfield. That doesn't mitigate the outrageous stupidity of your posts, but it's another lesson for you to ponder.

'Political power cannot be bought at the barrel of a gun'

China
Vietnam
Cambodia
Iran
Turkey
Armenia
Bosnia
Russia
America
Venezuela
Peru
Columbia
Nigeria
Sudan
Algeria
Morocco
Israel
Indonesia
Sierra Leone
Ireland
The DRC

All of these countries would probably flame you as well.

if that's the only way you can find to carry on your argument after that post i contend that you have failed and should bow out gracefully.

For what? For countering a blatant lie? Try again.

Classification of firearm-related fatality


Fatalities among children (ages 0-14)


Fatalities among juveniles & young adults (ages 15-19)


Fatalities among all persons ages 0-19

Assault


227


1,549


1,776

Suicide


110


897


1,007

Accident


86


107


193

Unexplained


10


26


36

Total


433


2,579


3,012

Average daily number


1.2


7.1


8.3
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000, the most recent year of complete data available.

All of these countries would probably flame you as well.

They had a standing army; it was not a tiny movement of ultra-fanatics. I meant that political power in Iraq could not be bought at the barrel of a gun.

So your belief in what people are thinking helps you to justify taking away people's property?

yes.

yes.

Good for you. Good thing your beliefs have no legal authority.

Right. 75 "children" in reports listing them as up to 26 years old. Try again.

On the afformentioned line of the article it doesn't give ages, they were all bits taken from a book researched on the subject.

They have, but not for economic reasons relating to control of the supply of oil. That objective cannot be accomplished by the sectarian butchers in Iraq. They are fighting for domination of Iraq, and their fight is fueled by religious differences and funded by Iran.

it doesn't matter that no side can actually win, they'd have even less chance of winning in the oil fields of the south. and even if they did manage to take over those oil fields there is no centralised state infrastructure from which they could coordinate and hold the region. control of the state itself is the only way in which iraq's oil fields can be controlled. i suggest that perhaps you consider that the people living and fighting in iraq have pondered this question much longer than you have and are considerably better informed of the situation than you are.

They had a standing army; it was not a tiny movement of ultra-fanatics. I meant that political power in Iraq could not be bought at the barrel of a gun.

It's like talking to the kid from AI.

All of the countries I listed either started small and grew larger with the augmentation of political wings to the paramilitary or vice-versa. Some remained small and gained power anyway. You seem quite sure that none of the 'murderous fanatics' will gain power. I put it to you that you are wrong, and I call human history as my witness.

On the afformentioned line of the article it doesn't give ages, they were all bits taken from a book researched on the subject.

Ah, so an unsourced book claiming "children" and lots of skewed statistics. Would you support outlawing pools, they are responsible for more child deaths than firearms?

why don't you read the comments to the article to show how accurate they are.

Good for you. Good thing your beliefs have no legal authority.

Good for you maybe. but not for the millions dying/wounded over the years. My arguement isn't just about American's right to bear arms, it's an anti-worldwide right to bear arms. Just my personal view is all like I said before "/rant"

For what? For countering a blatant lie? Try again.
Classification of firearm-related fatality
Fatalities among children (ages 0-14)
Fatalities among juveniles & young adults (ages 15-19)
Fatalities among all persons ages 0-19
Assault

...

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000, the most recent year of complete data available.

not sure what any of that was meant to prove but.....





















so much for grace

Ah, so an unsourced book claiming "children" and lots of skewed statistics. Would you support outlawing pools, they are responsible for more child deaths than firearms?

Source is in the link to the article I posted earlier.

"Safety Expert Gavin de Becker has found in researching his books, The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift that:"

not sure what any of that was meant to prove but.....
so much for grace

So I provide statistics showing how the FR linked article was BS and you can't figure it out?

This is a trick question ?

Source is in the link to the article I posted earlier.

Right. Now read the comments on FR for accurate information. You could also try reading the link I provided for more information.

Right. Now read the comments on FR for accurate information. You could also try reading the link I provided for more information.

ok, will do now

So I provide statistics showing how the FR linked article was BS and you can't figure it out?

you post was formatted in such a way that the words did not correspond with the figures in any meaningful way. all i got from it was tha lot's of people under the age on 19 had died at some point.

i suggest that perhaps you consider that the people living and fighting in iraq have pondered this question much longer than you have and are considerably better informed of the situation than you are.

I suggest that you should regard it as a possibility that you may perhaps contemplate that the people living and fighting in Iraq are religious extremists, sectarian butchers, Islamo-fascist slaughterers, call them what you wish. They are not concerned with the overall political structure -- all they wish is to control the state. They are too stupid to realize that that is unattainable through minority warfare.

Right. Now read the comments on FR for accurate information. You could also try reading the link I provided for more information.

Ok so I agree that the stats are skewed as "Children" are grouped up well into adult ages in the article I linked. But whether they are children or not is irrelevant. End result still equals dead, plus it's not just deaths I'm concerned with (though I've focused on it thus far in my arguement), but all the other gun-related crime also. I do however understand that a fair amount of it will be through illegally obtained firearms as shootings seem to happen a fair bit in inner city areas of the UK, esp. London (2 kids were shot and killed in McDonalds recently in Brixton). Though figures may be wrong, and some of the violence is through illegally obtained arms, I can still never agree on such easy availability of weapons. Really now I must stop this here as it's 1:15 a.m and I MUST sleep :)

I suggest that you should regard it as a possibility that you may perhaps contemplate that the people living and fighting in Iraq are religious extremists, sectarian butchers, Islamo-fascist slaughterers, call them what you wish. They are not concerned with the overall political structure -- all they wish is to control the state. They are too stupid to realize that that is unattainable through minority warfare.

i commend you on the beginning of this post. it was most amusing, and apparently intentionally so this time.

as for the rest. i think they are too desperate and belligerent to consider any alliances at this point so minority warfare will continue for the time being. at the moment the violence in iraq is akin to a national-scale gang war (i.e. a highly disorganised civil war) and the fight is aimed at filling the current power vacuum with one of the competing groups.

Ok so I agree that the stats are skewed as "Children" are grouped up well into adult ages in the article I linked. But whether they are children or not is irrelevant. End result still equals dead, plus it's not just deaths I'm concerned with (though I've focused on it thus far in my arguement), but all the other gun-related crime also. I do however understand that a fair amount of it will be through illegally obtained firearms as shootings seem to happen a fair bit in inner city areas of the UK, esp. London (2 kids were shot and killed in McDonalds recently in Brixton). Though figures may be wrong, and some of the violence is through illegally obtained arms, I can still never agree on such easy availability of weapons. Really now I must stop this here as it's 1:15 a.m and I MUST sleep :)

Now the difference here is I'm concerned about crime as a whole. The best way to go about reducing it is to get more effective policing methods and police along w/ tackling the social issues involved (poverty, education) etc. I also disagree w/ making people dependant on the police for protection which they are not legally obligated to give. Either way, they are primarily reactive to crime and can't really "protect" people from it.

Of course they should. If not I'll call up some of my Lebanese pals and we'll head over there and start an Iraqi chapter of the NRA.

um hey, dumbasses, they're going to have arms wether you like it or not, ITS IRAQ.

um hey, dumbasses, they're going to have arms wether you like it or not, ITS IRAQ.
Oh right!

I believe your insight has won this convo. Nicely done dude.

Brazil 2005 - 38,000 gun related killings (second highest in the world)

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051031/asp/opinion/story_5410455.asp

(still looking for US figures).
Here (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita) ya go.

um hey, dumbasses, they're going to have arms wether you like it or not, ITS IRAQ.

World biggest year round gunshow, no entry fees, buy all you want, no government interference.

For you, the projector is broken at the great orientation seminar of life.
Good one. :D

Now the difference here is I'm concerned about crime as a whole. The best way to go about reducing it is to get more effective policing methods and police along w/ tackling the social issues involved (poverty, education) etc.

Ok, I agree to all of this BUT this is a gun thread about Iraq. Yes I know I've hijacked it big-stylee here (before anyone else points it out).

I also disagree w/ making people dependant on the police for protection which they are not legally obligated to give. Either way, they are primarily reactive to crime and can't really "protect" people from it.
Yes the police are a reactive force, but unless you're truely psychic no-one is gonna shoot people before they commit a crime:rolleyes: (yes I know/understand what you mean.....just being awkward is all;))



ANYHOW, to post on-topic (rare for me I know), with the current state of Iraq they are forced to bear arms and yes I'd want to in their situation as it is WAR after all (though it was declared over a long time ago by GWB:rolleyes: ). It's gonna take many, many years before the political upheaval stops, if it ever does.

And NO the OP doesn't make me horny in the slightest - you gotta show a little more thigh perhaps and strike a pose:p

I suggest that you should regard it as a possibility that you may perhaps contemplate that the people living and fighting in Iraq are religious extremists, sectarian butchers, Islamo-fascist slaughterers, call them what you wish. They are not concerned with the overall political structure -- all they wish is to control the state. They are too stupid to realize that that is unattainable through minority warfare.

So when did you get back from Iraq? Surely you were there interviewing hudreds of people if you can make blanket statements about all their political beliefs.

The ineffective so-called government of Iraq may draft all the arbitary laws it wants (of course, within the realm of tacit U.S approval) but it couldn't enforce them for the live of them. It's almost as easier to buy a working firearm in Iraq as it is to buy a cellular phone in Iraq - some words on some dusty law books won't stop ordinary Iraqi getting a ole Chinese-copy of the AK-47 from a black market dealer.

Not only should Iraqis be armed, but I think things would be a lot better if every Iraqi woman walked around armed with a fully automatic machine gun.

For men, it may be optional.

Who knows? But around 100 people are dying each day for no reason at all in Iraq. They're like chickens with their heads cut off, running amok in the country. Not all of them are, of course, but a substantial part are. We need to close down Iraq's borders to prevent arms from getting shipped in and we also need to forcibly confiscate any arms we can find. We need to quell the unrest.


They have, but not for economic reasons relating to control of the supply of oil. That objective cannot be accomplished by the sectarian butchers in Iraq. They are fighting for domination of Iraq, and their fight is fueled by religious differences and funded by Iran.

Contradicting yourself is usually not the best way to win a debate. In fact, it's one of the best way to loose it.

Flip-flopper!

Heh - if it's allowed in the US, it should be allowed in their puppet state also, no?

Should Iraqis have the right to keep and bear arms?

I think they should have Popeye arms myself... those are neat.

Do I make you a little horny?

The Iraqis should be able to keep and bear arms, along with the corollary condition of being human targets for the arms of others.

Anyone seen on the street by an "authority" carrying an "arm" should be immediately and summarily shot.

The Iraqis should, though, be stripped of all automobiles and other land vehicles, including carts with or without donkeys.

When the Iraqis get control of their country back, after the inevitable break up and several civil wars, they can institute whatever laws regarding arms and autos they wish.

And if they cause trouble with "those who we care about" their infrastucture should be targetted and destroyed, with the subsequent (further) devastation of their society.

In other words, behave or live like primitives.

The Iraqis should be able to keep and bear arms, along with the corollary condition of being human targets for the arms of others.

Anyone seen on the street by an "authority" carrying an "arm" should be immediately and summarily shot.

The Iraqis should, though, be stripped of all automobiles and other land vehicles, including carts with or without donkeys.

When the Iraqis get control of their country back, after the inevitable break up and several civil wars, they can institute whatever laws regarding arms and autos they wish.

And if they cause trouble with "those who we care about" their infrastucture should be targetted and destroyed, with the subsequent (further) devastation of their society.

In other words, behave or live like primitives.
No, you are just being utterly unreasonable here.

"Don't let people live in their own country - kill 'em all!"

Nice one...

Iraqis go round killing each other, so they need...more guns!:eek:

No, I do not believe the Iraqis should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Not that it matters, since it's an hypothetical...

If that. (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/iraq/images/051904_guns.jpg)
Dammmmmnnnn...


It does make your arguement sink like a stone. The number of school shootings pales in comparison to the number of defensive uses of firearms. The school shootings give more weight to restricting the media from encouraging copycats and video games for encouraging violence.
Don't pull that video games crap, the past 3 had nothing to do with Video Games.

Dammmmmnnnn...



Don't pull that video games crap, the past 3 had nothing to do with Video Games.

You may also notice that I posted that I was being sarcastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
The Iraqis should be able to keep and bear arms, along with the corollary condition of being human targets for the arms of others.

Anyone seen on the street by an "authority" carrying an "arm" should be immediately and summarily shot.

The Iraqis should, though, be stripped of all automobiles and other land vehicles, including carts with or without donkeys.

When the Iraqis get control of their country back, after the inevitable break up and several civil wars, they can institute whatever laws regarding arms and autos they wish.

And if they cause trouble with "those who we care about" their infrastucture should be targetted and destroyed, with the subsequent (further) devastation of their society.

In other words, behave or live like primitives.

No, you are just being utterly unreasonable here.

"Don't let people live in their own country - kill 'em all!"

Nice one...

People have the right to live as they like, in their own country.

If they cause "trouble" for others in other countries, then whoever has the power to try to "change their behavior to be more sensible" has a right to attempt that behavior change.

I'm not advocating "kill them all" as that is impossible.

I'm merely saying that they if they prefer to live like savages, then they should find out how savages REALLY live, and be reduced to the social and economic level of a hunter-gatherer society of the early iron age (or late bronze age,.. it really doesn't matter!).

My guess is that when faced with that "lifestyle" they'd gladly ask for assistance.


That scenario is, of course, silly, as to actually attempt such a wholesale destruction of a society would create many more problems than it solves,.. but the basic idea is correct.

Make the pain of "being bad" more painful than "being good" and they will naturally evolve into a more sensible society.

hmm. I have a question: Should Iraqis have the right to keep and arm bears?

also, I laugh at your pathetic excuse at a joke option. if you want it to be afood item, it must be "pancakes", "pie", "cake", "cookies", or "chocolate". anything else ust plain is not funny.