Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraqi gun owners resist UK style confiscation

    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

    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.

    "There is a background to do with the attempts by British forces to
    make sure the local population, who regularly carry machine guns and
    small firearms, were disarmed of those weapons," Blair told
    parliament.

    "There had been problems in relation to that. That may form part of
    the background to it but at the moment it's simply too early to say."

    Local residents have said Iraqi civilians shot dead the six soldiers
    and wounded eight others during clashes on Tuesday over intrusive arms
    searches.

    But a British military spokesman, Ronnie McCourt, said the killing of
    the military police officers in the southern town of Majjar was
    unprovoked murder. Witnesses and residents said four Iraqis were
    killed and 14 wounded in the clashes with the British soldiers in
    Majjar, 18 miles south of the city of al Amarah.

    The clashes followed resentment over weapons searches by British
    soldiers and erupted after troops fired plastic bullets to try to
    control thousands of protesters, they said.

    Blair said that within 24 hours, he expected to be able to say more
    about the group that attacked the forces. Earlier, his spokesman said
    he did not recognize such a portrayal of British forces' actions or
    "rumors being bandied around."

    Blair said there was no question of Britain turning its back on Iraq,
    despite the losses.

    More British troops would be sent to Iraq if needed, he added but said
    local commanders believed they had enough forces.

  • #2
    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

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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


          Comment


          • #6
            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


            Comment


            • #7
              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.



              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment

                The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                Working...
                X