Announcement

**Tsam Nami** · 06-25-2003, 10:24 AM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

Ignoramus5278 wrote:

Turns out british troops were killed trying to confiscate small arms and handguns, by irate Iraqi gun owners. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../iraq_blair_dc

Some in the UK share(d) the sentiment. This song came to mind:
http://www.angelfire.com/on/clash/gi.html#Guns of Brixton, The
--
Tsam

**Shaun** · 06-25-2003, 10:48 AM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

On 25 Jun 2003 12:45:27 GMT, Ignoramus5278
<[email protected]> wrote:

Turns out british troops were killed trying to confiscate small armsand handguns, by irate Iraqi gun owners.http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../iraq_blair_dc

Yank gun nuts apparently have a huge problem with talking guns off
Iraqis, yet see nothing wrong in killing thousands of them to
confiscate weapons they do not have.

**Ignoramus5278** · 06-25-2003, 10:52 AM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

In article <[email protected]>, Shaun wrote:

On 25 Jun 2003 12:45:27 GMT, Ignoramus5278 <[email protected]> wrote:

Turns out british troops were killed trying to confiscate small armsand handguns, by irate Iraqi gun owners.http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../iraq_blair_dc

Yank gun nuts apparently have a huge problem with talking guns off Iraqis, yet see nothing wrong in killing thousands of them to confiscate weapons they do not have.

I am sure that I qualify as a US based gun nut (even though I own too
few guns), however, I do not approve of the Iraq occupation in the
least.

You are making false assumptions about gun owners. Do you hate guns
irrationally?

i

**William Black** · 06-26-2003, 10:37 AM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ..

In talk.politics.guns Ignoramus5278 <[email protected]>

wrote:

Turns out british troops were killed trying to confiscate small arms and handguns, by irate Iraqi gun owners. Blair: Troops Faced Problems Disarming Iraqis

LONDON (Reuters) - Six British troops killed in Iraq (news - web sites) may have run into trouble as they tried to disarm the local population, Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said on Wednesday.

Serves them right!

There are times when I wonder if we're actually on the right side...

Comments like that don't help...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

**William Black** · 06-27-2003, 07:16 AM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

"Mort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Ignoramus5278" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] .com...

Turns out british troops were killed trying to confiscate small arms and handguns, by irate Iraqi gun owners.

Hmm more likely the reasons for it kicking off are complex and possibly

due

to smuggling operations across the border from Iran or getting in the

middle

of tribal rivalries.

It looks like it's more to do with using sniffer dogs trained to find
explosives.

The dogs are definitely 'unclean' in some way, either social or religious,
it wasn't explained, and the soldiers concerned upset someone deeply.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

**Dersu** · 06-27-2003, 08:35 PM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

LONDON (Reuters) - Six British troops killed in Iraq (news - web sites) may have run into trouble as they tried to disarm the local population, Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said on Wednesday.

ARMED, AND SAFER, IRAQIS
By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...nists/1831.htm

June 26, 2003 -- THE June 14 deadline for Iraqi citizens to
turn in banned weapons worked about as poorly as any gun
buy-back program in the United States. After the two-week
program ended, a guard at one of the designated places to
turn in guns said, "We have had plenty of reporters, but no
weapons come in."

American soldiers are laying down their lives to protect
Iraqi citizens, and the last thing that we want to do is
put them in harm's way. On Tuesday, six British soldiers
were killed. During the preceding week, an American soldier
was killed by a sniper and another killed in a drive-by
shooting.

But as we try to protect Iraqis and ensure the safety of our
troops, we must ask: Is it really clear that our soldiers are
better off by attempting to disarm Iraqi citizens?

The argument seems straightforward Enough: Get rid of guns,
and the Iraqis can't harm our troops. Banning the carrying
of guns also makes it easier for soldiers to simply arrest
anyone they are suspicious of.

Yet, the question is more complicated: If guns are banned,
who would turn them in? Presumably the most law-abiding
citizens - not the terrorists and Ba'ath Party members whom
our troops should be concerned about.

Fortunately, despite many news stories to the contrary, our
government has taken a much more sensible approach than
outright banning guns. Iraqis are able to keep weapons up
to AK-47s in their home or business and are able to carry
guns with them with a permit. These AK-47s are real military
machine guns, not the semi-automatic versions that fire only
one bullet per trigger pull and are banned from being sold
in our country by the 1994 so-called assault-weapons ban.
Yet, despite Iraqis owning machine guns and the country still
not under control, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointed
out that Baghdad is experiencing fewer murders than Washington,
D.C., where handguns are banned.

To the extent that guns are banned and law-abiding citizens
disarmed, the jobs for our soldiers actually become more
difficult. Crime is already rampant. Consider the case of
Mohammed Abdul Razak, an Iraqi taxi driver who lost his
handgun when soldiers stopped him at a checkpoint because he
had it in his car's glove compartment without the proper
permit.

Just two days later, Razak could not defend himself when
carjackers attacked. Before his gun was taken, Razak had
successfully used his gun to scare off thieves.

As one report recently noted: "Instead of being filled
with people coming to give up their guns, police stations
are busy with Iraqis complaining about being victims of
crime - as well as people who say they want their
confiscated weapons back." A machine gun can be handy
defending oneself when people are being attacked by bands
of thugs.

It would be great if gun-control laws primarily disarmed
criminals, but as data from the U.S. and other countries
indicates, disarming law-abiding citizens actually
increases crime and encourages criminals to attack because
they have less to worry about. Studies continually show
that gun-control laws such as gun buy-backs, waiting
periods, one-gun-a-month regulations, assault-weapons bans
and gun-show regulations are associated with either no
statistically significant change or increases in violent
crime. The states that polls show as having the biggest
increases in gun ownership are also the ones that have
experienced the biggest relative drops in violent crime.

But won't letting citizens carry weapons make soldiers'
jobs more difficult and more dangerous? Surely it is easy
to imagine what can go wrong when a soldier comes across a
citizen with a gun.

Yet, recent research by Professor David Mustard at the
University of Georgia examined jurisdictions with different
kinds of gun laws and found that only one kind was associated
with fewer police being killed by criminals - the kind that
lets citizens carry concealed handguns. The people who take
the time to apply for a permit to carry a gun are not the
people police have to worry about. Interestingly enough,
criminals apparently become less likely to carry guns as
more law-abiding citizens do so.

With an American media that reports only the bad things that
happen with guns, it might be hard for some Americans to
understand that the simplistic approach of banning guns can
make our soldiers' jobs more difficult. Our soldiers are
extremely important in creating a stable society, but they
cannot protect more than 22 million Iraqis all of the time.
Wasting resources on collecting Iraqi guns will only work
against efforts to make Iraq eventually a civilized country.

**Ignoramus32229** · 06-28-2003, 07:36 AM

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

Fewer murders in Baghdad than in Washington, DC? That's the final nail
in the coffin of gun control.

i

In article <[email protected]>, Dersu wrote:

> LONDON (Reuters) - Six British troops killed in Iraq (news - web > sites) may have run into trouble as they tried to disarm the local > population, Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said on > Wednesday.

ARMED, AND SAFER, IRAQIS By JOHN R. LOTT JR. New York Post http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...nists/1831.htm June 26, 2003 -- THE June 14 deadline for Iraqi citizens to turn in banned weapons worked about as poorly as any gun buy-back program in the United States. After the two-week program ended, a guard at one of the designated places to turn in guns said, "We have had plenty of reporters, but no weapons come in." American soldiers are laying down their lives to protect Iraqi citizens, and the last thing that we want to do is put them in harm's way. On Tuesday, six British soldiers were killed. During the preceding week, an American soldier was killed by a sniper and another killed in a drive-by shooting. But as we try to protect Iraqis and ensure the safety of our troops, we must ask: Is it really clear that our soldiers are better off by attempting to disarm Iraqi citizens? The argument seems straightforward Enough: Get rid of guns, and the Iraqis can't harm our troops. Banning the carrying of guns also makes it easier for soldiers to simply arrest anyone they are suspicious of. Yet, the question is more complicated: If guns are banned, who would turn them in? Presumably the most law-abiding citizens - not the terrorists and Ba'ath Party members whom our troops should be concerned about. Fortunately, despite many news stories to the contrary, our government has taken a much more sensible approach than outright banning guns. Iraqis are able to keep weapons up to AK-47s in their home or business and are able to carry guns with them with a permit. These AK-47s are real military machine guns, not the semi-automatic versions that fire only one bullet per trigger pull and are banned from being sold in our country by the 1994 so-called assault-weapons ban. Yet, despite Iraqis owning machine guns and the country still not under control, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointed out that Baghdad is experiencing fewer murders than Washington, D.C., where handguns are banned. To the extent that guns are banned and law-abiding citizens disarmed, the jobs for our soldiers actually become more difficult. Crime is already rampant. Consider the case of Mohammed Abdul Razak, an Iraqi taxi driver who lost his handgun when soldiers stopped him at a checkpoint because he had it in his car's glove compartment without the proper permit. Just two days later, Razak could not defend himself when carjackers attacked. Before his gun was taken, Razak had successfully used his gun to scare off thieves. As one report recently noted: "Instead of being filled with people coming to give up their guns, police stations are busy with Iraqis complaining about being victims of crime - as well as people who say they want their confiscated weapons back." A machine gun can be handy defending oneself when people are being attacked by bands of thugs. It would be great if gun-control laws primarily disarmed criminals, but as data from the U.S. and other countries indicates, disarming law-abiding citizens actually increases crime and encourages criminals to attack because they have less to worry about. Studies continually show that gun-control laws such as gun buy-backs, waiting periods, one-gun-a-month regulations, assault-weapons bans and gun-show regulations are associated with either no statistically significant change or increases in violent crime. The states that polls show as having the biggest increases in gun ownership are also the ones that have experienced the biggest relative drops in violent crime. But won't letting citizens carry weapons make soldiers' jobs more difficult and more dangerous? Surely it is easy to imagine what can go wrong when a soldier comes across a citizen with a gun. Yet, recent research by Professor David Mustard at the University of Georgia examined jurisdictions with different kinds of gun laws and found that only one kind was associated with fewer police being killed by criminals - the kind that lets citizens carry concealed handguns. The people who take the time to apply for a permit to carry a gun are not the people police have to worry about. Interestingly enough, criminals apparently become less likely to carry guns as more law-abiding citizens do so. With an American media that reports only the bad things that happen with guns, it might be hard for some Americans to understand that the simplistic approach of banning guns can make our soldiers' jobs more difficult. Our soldiers are extremely important in creating a stable society, but they cannot protect more than 22 million Iraqis all of the time. Wasting resources on collecting Iraqi guns will only work against efforts to make Iraq eventually a civilized country.