MicroBalrog
June 28, 2003, 01:27 AM
ARMED, AND SAFER, IRAQIS
By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/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.
___________________________________________________
Wow! Note what Rumspheld says.
By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/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.
___________________________________________________
Wow! Note what Rumspheld says.