Iraq and the second amendment.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548900752.html

Iraq is providing an interesting laboratory of the Second Amendment in action. While not a direct correlation for a similar experience in the US, it is nevertheless worth looking at.

Iraq has lots of guns, and lots of crime.

The US has carried out a conventional war quite comfortable. However, the number of arms is causing numerous problems in maintaining a civil society.

I have said before that I cannot see the second amendment being worth much, as a modern army can defeat small arms. In large, this is true, but the presence of small arms does disrupt the maintenance of order. Can it overthrow the big army? Only if those who run the army care about the loses they are suffering.

Tide of violence washing away civilian hopes and lives

Growing gun crime is a lethal threat to postwar recovery, Thanassis Cambanis reports from Baghdad.

Even in these murderous days, where carjackings and hold-ups by gangs armed with machine-guns are common, Ala Abed Ali's trip to the Baghdad morgue stood out.

Twelve members of his family were massacred in their two-storey home at lunchtime on August 25, in one of the inexplicable but increasingly common attacks that have made many Iraqis feel less safe than they did during the American invasion - and which have become a rallying point against the occupation forces.

Mr Abed Ali and several dozen kinsmen had come to pick up the bodies and bear them away to the Shiite holy city of Najaf in the south of the country.

In Baghdad, where the number of murders has skyrocketed to hundreds every month since US forces took over and disbanded Iraq's security forces, the Abed Ali clan was not alone in the morgue's cramped concrete courtyard.

 

[EvilYeti]

I have said before that I cannot see the second amendment being worth much, as a modern army can defeat small arms. In large, this is true, but the presence of small arms does disrupt the maintenance of order. Can it overthrow the big army? Only if those who run the army care about the loses they are suffering.

You won't be able win any war's, but you can harrass and kill enough of the enemy to make it not worth their while to stick around. This works especially well if the war is not popular with the citizens supporting the army. (1,2,3)

References:
(1) Vietnam
(2) Russia's occupation of Afghanistan
(3) America's occupation of Iraq (work in progress)

 

[peptoabysmal]

Here's an interesting article that claims the soldiers are statistically safer in Iraq than roaming the streets of the US.

Story

As Perry from Samizdata points out, the quiet rate of one solider dead per day is quite less than the 42 people murdered per day in the US in 2002. Granted, Iraq's population is 24 million (as of July 2002, per the CIA world factbook) and the US population in July 2002 is roughly 280 million, then adjusting for population differences, the soldier death rate in Iraq (if one accepts Jim's figures) is equivalent to a US death rate of 11.7 people killed per day.

In other words, keeping with Jim's simplistic tone, couldn't one say that US soldiers are currently facing a 72% lower risk for murder in Iraq than if they were in the US? Hmmm.

And Washington is the worst place to be. Maybe Dubya would be safer if he donned his flight suit and went over to Iraq for a while.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now that would have to be one of the dummest posts I have ever read.

The population of US troops should be the population you are considering. Also consider they are very heavily armed. I think you would find the actual homicide rate for the Iraqi population would be very high, as the actual story I have quoted makes clear.

But then, this is the sort of attitude I would expect, the people of Iraq don't exist, and the only people who count are the US troops.

 

[Marvel Frozen]

But then, this is the sort of attitude I would expect, the people of Iraq don't exist, and the only people who count are the US troops.

From that quote, it appears the person thinks the people of Iraq are US troops.

 

[Michael Redman]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow Americans to resist the US government, and invaders onto US soil. I don't really think this situation is all that analogous. I do think that if the Iraqi people really resisted, the major combat would still be far from over. The US didn't face any real resistance, except from a few fanatics. Small arms can't stop armor from driving across the desert, but in urban areas, tanks can be stopped by RPGs with a lucky shot, and most troops are far more open to small arms fire either on foot, or in less armored vehicles. If the Iraqis were widely resisting, this would be a bloody mess.

I don’t think this experience tells us whether the population of the US, if armed and determined, could resist the army, were the government somehow to decide to try to use the army to suppress the people. I don't personally have much doubt as to the effect of widespread gun distribution on crime and violence, but that isn't relevant to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Crossbow]

Here's an interesting article that claims the soldiers are statistically safer in Iraq than roaming the streets of the US.

Story
As Perry from Samizdata points out, the quiet rate of one solider dead per day is quite less than the 42 people murdered per day in the US in 2002. Granted, Iraq's population is 24 million (as of July 2002, per the CIA world factbook) and the US population in July 2002 is roughly 280 million, then adjusting for population differences, the soldier death rate in Iraq (if one accepts Jim's figures) is equivalent to a US death rate of 11.7 people killed per day.

In other words, keeping with Jim's simplistic tone, couldn't one say that US soldiers are currently facing a 72% lower risk for murder in Iraq than if they were in the US? Hmmm.



And Washington is the worst place to be. Maybe Dubya would be safer if he donned his flight suit and went over to Iraq for a while.

Boy that is some really stupid math!

Yeah, and I do mean stupid math!

First of all, there are about 140,000 USA troops in Iraq. That figure about the 24 million is the total population of Iraq as opposed to the total number of Americans in Iraq.

Another way to look at it is, that the population of Americans in the USA is about 2000 times greater than that that of the Americans in Iraq. Therefore, extrapolating the Iraqi murder rate of one/day to USA would equate to 2000 murders/day (when in actually it is about 12/day).

And for those that cannot appreciate the subtle nature of arithmetic, I suggest that they at least read the below article to get a better idea of the very real dangers that US personnel have in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64826-2003Aug29.html
Report: Attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq Rising

Attacks on civilians and U.S. military personnel in Iraq have become so commonplace that a brazen assassination attempt last month on two military officers in civilian dress working for the Coalition Provisional Authority wasn't even reported at the time.

...

"Many incidents are not making the headlines," the report continued. "Most of them are not being reported at all by the forces involved as they are possibly trying to minimize the threats and play down the overall threat to all involved in working in Iraq."

...

 

[Kodiak]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548900752.html

Iraq is providing an interesting laboratory of the Second Amendment in action. While not a direct correlation for a similar experience in the US, it is nevertheless worth looking at.

Iraq has lots of guns, and lots of crime.

The US has carried out a conventional war quite comfortable. However, the number of arms is causing numerous problems in maintaining a civil society.

I have said before that I cannot see the second amendment being worth much, as a modern army can defeat small arms. In large, this is true, but the presence of small arms does disrupt the maintenance of order. Can it overthrow the big army? Only if those who run the army care about the loses they are suffering.

Wow...an original and interesting take, A_U_P!

5 stars!...

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Iraq and the second amendment.

Wow...an original and interesting take, A_U_P!

5 stars!...

I have to agree.

A private militia armed with firearms available to civilians would be unable to defend themselves against most militaries (either ours or an invading one), at least, not for long. The first air strike would pretty much be all she wrote.

(The alternative would be to allow civilian purchase of military grade firearms and weapons and I don't think anyone in their right minds would want that stuff on the streets of America.)

And there is nothing in the second amendment which protects the right to bear arms for the purpose of sports, like hunting or target shooting.

The only applicablity that the second amendment would still hold in the modern world is personal self defense and defense of the home. And even that is iffy, because in my mind, it borders on vigilantism.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq and the second amendment.

And there is nothing in the second amendment which protects the right to bear arms for the purpose of sports, like hunting or target shooting.

Enumerated purposes are unnecessary when the stated right "shall not be infringed".

 

[Dancing David]

I believe that the purpose of the second amendment is manifold.
-there wre nations in Europe which limited the pssesion of arms and taxed the possesion of arm
-there were other nation that limited the right to hunt on land

Part of the Amendment is to definitly have a defense force ready at hand.

There has been a huge number of crimes commited because of the number of arms in Iraq.

 

[Kodiak]

Part of the Amendment is to definitly have a defense force ready at hand.

That "force" was meant to be the lawfully-armed American populace.