Armed vigilantes roam Baghdad streets

[sabra]

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2006-11-29\kurd1.htm

Armed vigilantes roam Baghdad streets

In the absence of government or U.S. control, various Iraqi militias operating in Baghdad have taken law enforcement into their own hands.

Armed men totting machine guns and rocket propelled grenades roam the streets amid fears of reprisals from rival sectarian groups.

In the mixed Yarmouk district, armed men keep an eye on strangers and search cars and vehicles.

...

In most areas gunmen and militias are in control and if the government forces or police are present they usually join the militia ranks.

...

“One can say the Iraqi police force is almost non-functional,” one analyst said.

[Trajan]

1. Those areas where absolute gun 'rights' prevail ...

Turn into killing zones ....

Somalia ...

Afghanistan ...

Iraq ...

How long before America ? ..... Scary ...

Yeah; I know .... it would be sticks and stones if not guns, but one can categorically state that the mere fact that guns are available for 'security' doesnt mean that 'security' will be secured ... and on the contrary, 'security' will not exist .....

[saigon68]

4. "BRING EM ON" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=065a93ef9a

[semillama]

2. How is this breaking news? Seems like "Status Quo" to me!

I know it's a new news story, just making the point that it's stating the obvious.

One thing I like to do here is scan down the LBN thread titles and imagine how many would recieve "Obvious" tags if this were FARK.com.

Really, where is the "noble purpose" anymore?

[denverbill]

3. Per the NRA, everyone in Baghdad should feel safer. n/t

[MGD]

6. I know I would sure feel safer without a gun in that environment.

[denverbill]

7. Per the NRA, the more people carrying guns, the safer everyone should feel.

Personally I feel a lot safer in the US, where 99% of the citizenry doesn't walk around carrying guns. And if the Iraqi police had the power and will to confiscate the weapons of these militias, I have a feeling Iraqis would feel a helluva lot safer too.

[slackmaster]

8. I'm not an NRA member, but could you provide a cite for that?

Per the NRA, the more people carrying guns, the safer everyone should feel.

Is that something the NRA has actually said, or is it hyperbole on your part, denverbill?

[brentspeak]

9. The NRA has been touting John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" book for years

Even though it was discovered a few years ago that Lott BS'd some of his data.

[slackmaster]

13. That's pretty close to confirmation

I think it is a gross oversimplification of their policy.

My point is, if the NRA's actual policies are not based on sound facts and are worthy of ridicule, what value is there in creating strawmen?

[brentspeak]

19. What strawman was created?

How is it "creating a strawman" to point out that the NRA has repeatedly cited Lott's discredited book? It's a simple fact, and doesn't even qualify as an "argument".

[slackmaster]

20. Even Lott does not say the more people carrying guns, the safer you are

Read his book some time. The title was written to be provocative. He most certainly does not argue for everyone being armed.

[Trajan]

21. Hell .... SLACK has been promoting that line of thinking for years too ....

Cite ? .... who needs one: read every other post ....

Love ya Slackmaster, but let's not backtrack too quickly ....

[denverbill]

11. It's infered from years of their slogans.

'An armed society is a polite society' for example.

And in part based on laws supported by the NRA such as those which REQUIRE citizens to keep guns in their homes.

Or in speeches where they say things such as suggesting that if teachers or students were allowed to carry weapons, Columbine might not have happened.

I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that if 'an armed society is a polite society' that they should agree with my statement as well.

[slackmaster]

12. "An armed society is a polite society" is not an NRA slogan

It's a quote by Robert A. Heinlein.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html

And in part based on laws supported by the NRA such as those which REQUIRE citizens to keep guns in their homes.

The few such laws that exist are in small towns. All have exceptions for people who really don't want to keep one.

I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that if 'an armed society is a polite society' that they should agree with my statement as well.

I don't think that's a reasonable extrapolation, and I doubt very much that the quote has been adopted as an official slogan by the NRA.

Of course, if that were the case you could have given me a link.

[denverbill]

15. And what is the point of requiring citizens to own guns?

Do they just make up those laws for no particular reason? The purpose, as far as I have always heard it, is that forcing gun ownership will discourage crime because criminals would fear the armed citizenry, which is the exact same theory behind the statement that 'an armed society is a polite society', or 'an armed society is a less crime prone society' or 'an armed society is a safe society'. Who cares if there are exceptions to their laws requiring gun ownership. That has nothing to do with the basic point of the law, which is the more guns = less crime.

Perhaps you could provide me with a link to ANY official slogan of the NRA. Whether or not anything I've said is an 'offical slogan of the NRA' seems to be kind of irrelevant if they would agree with the statement.

[slackmaster]

17. You're asking the wrong person to defend it, denverbill

I think only people who really want guns should own them.

The purpose, as far as I have always heard it, is that forcing gun ownership will discourage crime because criminals would fear the armed citizenry...

The stated purpose thinly disguises the real motivation for such laws - To make a political point of some kind.

That has nothing to do with the basic point of the law, which is the more guns = less crime.

To be perfectly candid with you, I think they do make a point that is not exactly the one intended: That more guns does not necessarily lead to more crime. That has been proved continuously since about 1983 when states started adopting laws that require their governments to issue concealed weapons permits to any qualified person. In no case have those led to any real problems.

What really matters is WHO has the guns.

Perhaps you could provide me with a link to ANY official slogan of the NRA.

You can look up their stuff just as easily as I can. Perhaps their high mucky-mucks may have used the Heinlein quote in a speech somewhere. That would not surprise me.

[MGD]

10. If the madness consuming Iraq ever visited America, I would feel much safer with a gun

If the Presbyterians wanted to kidnap me, tie me up, torture me with an electric drill, and then execute me because I'm a Methodist, I would feel safer having something other than my good looks and charming demeanor to persuade them to leave me alone.

"And if the Iraqi police had the power and will to confiscate the weapons of these militias, I have a feeling Iraqis would feel a helluva lot safer too."
Right. Just look at how safe the Jews were after the German police confiscated their weapons.

[denverbill]

14. I don't think the German Jews would have fared any differently regardless.

They owned guns prior to 1938 and opted not to use them to defend their rights to own guns. If they willingly handed over their guns in the face of overwhelming police power in 1938, what makes you think that if the 1938 law had not been passed that they would have used their guns to resist being sent to concentration camps? Armed Japanese-Americans didn't use their weapons to fight their internment and neither the Jews nor the Japanese had any real clue as to their ultimate fate. When faced with the prospect of certain death versus placing yourself at the mercy of the state, people will almost inevitably choose the latter in cases like these, because they can maintain hope the basic human decency will eventually prevail and they will ultimately survive and regain their freedom.

The fact that you would feel safer with a gun in Iraq isn't too surprising, since the state has virtually no power and armed vilantes rule the roost. In Germany in the early 30's, bloody street brawls between Communists and other political factions were common. Most Germans felt a LOT safer after Hitler used the power of the enabling laws to ban the Communist party and jail their leaders. No doubt most Iraqis felt a lot safer under Saddam's police state than they do now as well.

The lesson of the story: An armed populace is no deterrent to dictatorship or crime, and a powerful state-run police force might be able to keep you safe from crime, but not necessarily from the state.

[MGD]

16. We'll never know; however, I think it's safe to say, they will never make that mistake again.

You know what they say about those who don't learn from history.


"No doubt most Iraqis felt a lot safer under Saddam's police state than they do now as well."

No doubt; however, Saddam's police state no longer exists and is, therefore, irrelevant to their current situation. They must survive, as best they can, in their new reality.

"An armed populace is no deterrent to dictatorship or crime"
I disagree and the very unique example that Iraq provides us does not really support your position IMO as many Iraqis are using their weapons to, in fact, deter US occupation much in the way that many Americans would certainly use their weapons to resist an occupation by Chinese uniformed soldiers for example. And to use their example as evidence that an armed populace doesn't deter crime is to suggest that they aren't also involved in a civil war but are, rather, committing random self-serving criminal acts such as that might occur in a dark US alley in the "wrong part of town". As such, this is a poor example from which to draw your conclusions.

"a powerful state-run police force might be able to keep you safe from crime, but not necessarily from the state."

I can't argue with that.

[MGD]

18. "An armed populace is no deterrent to dictatorship or crime"

And I also meant to mention, that a disarmed populace is no deterent to crime either.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

[angstlessk]

5. Who is keeping up with the list? Santa? Vigilantes, militias,

insurgents, terrorists, foreign fighters...who EXACTLY are the good guys and who are the bad?

[magellan]

22. The good guys are being murdered, run out of the country

...or are in hiding. I'm talking about the Iraqi civilians who have done nothing but hope for peace since 2003. Everyone else is an actor in this melee Dimson has unleashed in Iraq.