Gun ownership in third world countries

[monotonous_iterancy]

In the thread about Americans owning half the world's guns, it was pointed out by Wanderling that in a lot of African and Middle east countries, they have plenty of guns, but no freedom.

Case in point, Saddam Hussein. He terrorized an entire country for decades, and the population lived in fear of him, yet nearly every household has a gun.

Doesn't that undercut our notions of the 2nd amendment, and that dictators "always round up guns"? Is it a cultural difference?

 

[jstein650]

Absolutely a cultural difference. Those folks have no concept of real freedom. If any one of them even considered taking up arms against the state, they know full well that they and probably their families would be massacred without so much as the batting of an eye.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Show me the proof that "every household had guns". From what I was told by my nephews who were actually on the ground amid the public those who did not toe the party line did not have guns. The cultural gap is also huge. The former Soviet Union is a great example. Many of the people who grew up with the expectation that the government would always provide a basic form of subsistence (a high rise apartment that reeked of sewer gas because the "official" Soviet toilet did not have a trap, a coupon for a bread line, and a job where you acted like you were actually working) were terrorized at the concept of being responsible for themselves even if it meant a higher standard of living for them and their children.

You would be able to ask much better questions if you did a little self-education. Try reading the book One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch as a beginning. It was written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He experienced the glory of a Marxist based centrally managed lifestyle first hand.

By the way, your screen name is very fitting....

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, when one looks at African and Middle Eastern countries, as opposed to eastern Europe and/or the former Soviet Union, a lot of folks DO have guns. Even after we had a semblance of control in Iraq, households were still allowed to have a Kalashnikov for personal use and protection of the home.

But the reasons why (what we think are) good things haven't always come from that are as varied as the countries themselves.

The middle eastern countries tend to follow tribal (very extended family in other words) loyalties, much more than official country loyalties, by and large. Some tribal or cultural groups do resist even violent dictators from time to time. (Look at the Kurds.) Some wouldn't fight (usually, except when making a power play) because they are part of the ruling tribe/family. Others manage to find their place in the status quo and have just enough autonomy and what they consider to be quality of life that they won't rock the boat. And these places tend to foster, follow and even respect very direct, brutal rulers as that's all their cultures have ever known and all they ever really foresee. Not so much a fight for your rights as a group deciding that they either must overthrow or submit and make the best of it... and they realize they cannot overthrow.

In many African countries there are a LOT of guns, but they aren't in the hands of the masses, so to speak. Instead they're in the hands of large groups of thugs, militias, and armies ruled over by warlords for power and profit. When you and hundreds of thousands of your neighbors are all scrambling for a few grains of rice a day and a multi-mile walk for a jug of dirty water, even when an AK only costs a few bucks, if you had one you'd sell it for food. Instead of the heads of households being responsible armed citizens, the armed are often children, deliberately orphaned, heavily drugged, given power over others by genocidal big men like Joseph Kony, or smaller-time criminal kingpins operating in the diamond industry. (Read A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Baeh)

The eternal question is how would any of that relate to a rich, comfortable, well-fed technologically advanced society with a powerful central government based on a federal system that (some percentage of residents) came to believe faced tyranny? The answers appear to be as varied as all the different apocalyptic tales we could come up with.

 

[sawdeanz]

This is pretty interesting concept since like you said it is an exception to many of our beliefs involving the role of gun ownership in relation to government control. I would counter with the notion that it doesn't necessarily make our beliefs wrong and as others said could be cultural.

Secondly I would question whether the places we often associate with being armed actually have "gun ownership" or is it just warlords arming their respective bands? This is something I wasn't clear on regarding what Wanderling said.

Case in point I just returned from a mission trip in Sierra Leone. The common misconception (which I shared going there) is that it is a violent place. On the contrary since the end of the war over 10 years ago it is of the more peaceful African countries and there is a total ban on guns there. In fact one fellow I talked to seemed very confident that it was this reason Sierra Leone was so peaceful while America was having massacre's left and right. From what I gathered from most people though is that the real reason is cultural, Sierra Leone just happens to benefit from an unnaturally religiously tolerant people.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Sorry, did you say America has massacres to the left and to the right?
Where?

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

The middle eastern countries tend to follow tribal (very extended family in other words) loyalties, much more than official country loyalties, by and large.

That's something I took into account. I'm not talking about them displacing their despotic rulers, but rather simply defending themselves. If you were an Iraqi, and Saddam's secret police came to "disappear" both you and your family because say, someone at work claimed to overhear you making an offhand comment about whatever, wouldn't having a gun give you both the means and the confidence to stand up and say "you're not taking my family"?

After all, every Iraqi was aware of it happening, most of them probably knew someone it happened to. Yet, even though nearly every household was armed, it still occurred, and though I'm just guessing, it seems like it did with near impunity.

 

[119er]

I usually do not comment on threads like these but I can offer some personal experience as to why it may have a large cultural influence.

I was in Iraq shortly after the Saddam was captured and some structure was being instituted. The ING had checkpoints set up(kinda) and the police did patrols(sort of). There were instances where the ING(Iraqi Nat'l Guard) and the IP(Iraqi Police) would have shoot outs with one another. It was usually linked to some tribal dispute or some form of disrespect to them. Frankly, at the time it was very frustrating and it seemed more like dealing with children than men. That is how we saw it. To them I'm sure it is a big deal, obviously enough to kill over.

In other words, just because you have the means to fight for freedom doesn't necessarily mean you have the capacity or will to. Freedom as we know it is as foreign to them as their tribal disputes are to us.

It is true that each household was allowed one AK-47 or rifle. No handguns were allowed as well as the obvious RPG's and other military weapons.

 

[jstein650]

119er said

"I usually do not comment on threads like these..."

Thank you for doing so.

"In other words, just because you have the means to fight for freedom doesn't necessarily mean you have the capacity or will to. Freedom as we know it is as foreign to them as their tribal disputes are to us. "

Kind of what I was trying to say, but from a person of experience, you've said it better.

 

[Sam1911]

That's something I took into account. I'm not talking about them displacing their despotic rulers, but rather simply defending themselves. If you were an Iraqi, and Saddam's secret police came to "disappear" both you and your family because say, someone at work claimed to overhear you making an offhand comment about whatever, wouldn't having a gun give you both the means and the confidence to stand up and say "you're not taking my family"?

One rifle against how many very violent, heavily armed men arriving unexpectedly? With no legal system, no redress, no sympathetic press to make your case known to ... well, to no one who has any power to help? Against a leader and his ruling class with no accountability to any power within your national borders? You could maybe go out in a blaze of glory, especially if you want your family and friends to suffer the same fate, or worse.

 

[imaghn]

worth the time

The movie "the Devils double" gives some good insight into how a society (iraq) can tolerate brutality from its leadership.

The story is told from the point of view of Uday's (Saddam's son) body double.

Very interesting & frightening movie.

 

[Shear_stress]

Case in point, Saddam Hussein. He terrorized an entire country for decades, and the population lived in fear of him, yet nearly every household has a gun.

I think you might be confusing pre-invasion and post-invasion histories. Before the invasion, I believe that legal gun ownership was confined to Baath party members and other regime loyalists. Even so, there were rebellions both in the northern Kurdish areas as well as in the marshes of the south during Sadaam's rule.

It was only after the invasion and the subsequent liquidation of Iraq's vast arms depots that "every household has a gun." This was actually a Coalition policy and represented a limit on what people could own.

 

[itsa pain]

Absolutely a cultural difference. Those folks have no concept of real freedom. If any one of them even considered taking up arms against the state, they know full well that they and probably their families would be massacred without so much as the batting of an eye.

so would we

 

[itsa pain]

In the thread about Americans owning half the world's guns, it was pointed out by Wanderling that in a lot of African and Middle east countries, they have plenty of guns, but no freedom.

Case in point, Saddam Hussein. He terrorized an entire country for decades, and the population lived in fear of him, yet nearly every household has a gun.

Doesn't that undercut our notions of the 2nd amendment, and that dictators "always round up guns"? Is it a cultural difference?

that was a bunch of bull prior to the war like saddam had nukes. anyone could buy machine guns anything rpgs whatever you had money for. this bull about killing people opposed to saddam is more bull. how do you think he kept the lid on all those tribes warlords and religious factions. after we "liberated" the iraquis that is when all hell broke loose and they slaughtered each other by the thousands and we took guns away. he had to eliminate some people but he kept it from becoming total civil war like we caused. in order to save the iraquis we had to destroy them

 

[tarosean]

Keep in mind that there is no freedom of the press out there. A lot of stuff happens that you will never hear about.

 

[Agsalaska]

Sorry, did you say America has massacres to the left and to the right?
Where?

He was referring to comments made by a man in Sierra Leone.

 

[SilentStalker]

In other words, just because you have the means to fight for freedom doesn't necessarily mean you have the capacity or will to.

Originally posted by: 119er

This is a very succinct answer. Well said, and it is pretty much what I was going to say. The only thing is, in some ways, I feel like we should be doing more here at home against a gov that is clearly getting out of control. We do not want to wake up 20 years from now and be the very same people we are discussing.

 

[bdickens]

k
In many African countries there are a LOT of guns, but they aren't in the hands of the masses, so to speak. Instead they're in the hands of large groups of thugs, militias, and armies ruled over by warlords for power and profit. When you and hundreds of thousands of your neighbors are all scrambling for a few grains of rice a day and a multi-mile walk for a jug of dirty water, even when an AK only costs a few bucks, if you had one you'd sell it for food. Instead of the heads of households being responsible armed citizens, the armed are often children, deliberately orphaned, heavily drugged, given power over others by genocidal big men like Joseph Kony, or smaller-time criminal kingpins operating in the diamond industry. (Read A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Baeh)

Oh, so it's just like Chicago.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

It seems, according to this article, that only Baath party members could have AKs and other military weapons, but everyone else could still buy shotguns, lever actions, and other hunting weapons.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html

One rifle against how many very violent, heavily armed men arriving unexpectedly? With no legal system, no redress, no sympathetic press to make your case known to ... well, to no one who has any power to help? Against a leader and his ruling class with no accountability to any power within your national borders? You could maybe go out in a blaze of glory, especially if you want your family and friends to suffer the same fate, or worse.

That's a very good point. Some people make it sound like the 2nd amendment is the only amendment that keeps us free. What I infer from your post is that every single amendment protects the others. Every single one of them is important, inter-connected and if one is shredded, the others are at risk as well.

Freedom of speech and press, the right to trial by a jury of citizens, the right to actually have a trial, as well as the others liberties we take for granted really are just as important.

 

[itsa pain]

Keep in mind that there is no freedom of the press out there. A lot of stuff happens that you will never hear about.

lol if we had a free press there would have been no war in Iraq or NSA spying etc we are not much better then they are just more fake money

 

[X-Rap]

Our RTKBA shouldn't be confused with the possession of weapons in some lawless areas or passive allowance of the privileged who support or tolerate the ruling party.
We should also be aware of the need to integrate immigrants from these places with our history and the context of the freedoms we sometimes take for granted.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Here's a cultural question. What is the reason for gun ownership, particularly widespread gun ownership in these countries? Furthermore, why do dictators allow the people to have guns in the first place? It seems like an anomaly from the rest of the world. Lenin took away guns, Hitler took away guns (from Jews and political opponents), Ferdinand Marcos took away guns.

Yet Hussein, Al-Assad, and others not only don't take away guns, it seems like they allow people to have them, and not only have them, but have them largely unregulated. What's up with that?

 

[SilentStalker]

^^^Simple. It's self regulation in their warped minds. If you can create a divide and cause enough fear and anguish among the people then its easy to become the hero for the common cause. In other words, its easy to step in and make it appear that you have created order when there is indeed chaos among the people. As a dictator its finding this balance that keeps their power going. They have to exert the right amount of fear/divide/chaos and order at the same time. Otherwise, they lose control. Its also the sole reason dictators push for a common enemy. It helps to provide unity and a cause when there might not otherwise be one and it makes them look better.

Think of it like this, politicians keep their jobs and do so by making or writing new laws. Once this ends there is no reason for them to hold position hence the reason they constantly push for new things. They know this. There is a relationship between all things. Yin and Yang my friend.

if dictators did not find this balance then it would be apparent to the people that they were terrible leaders and the people would quickly come to the realization that they needed to oust them. However, if they appear to be doing some good then the people will put up with their nuttiness for some order. Dictators do provide order, albeit it under terrible circumstances, but it is usually better than just mass chaos and no leadership whatsoever. Most people like order to some degree. And if you think about it all of us live in ordered lives whether you want to admit it or not. Most of us work for the man to live a certain lifestyle, we follow rules that are set before us to get along as a society, etc. on and on. Nobody is truly free IMO. Some just have more latitude of freedom than others.

Those dictators that completely force the people into complacency usually do not last as long. Just as politicians who continue to force laws down the throats of citizens who do not want those laws may find themselves in a precarious position.

 

[jstein650]

SilentStalker: "They have to exert the right amount of fear/divide/chaos and order at the same time..."
This and most of your post... well, I doubt I'm the only one seeing some curious parallels right now, right here in the good ol' US. I'll say no more.

 

[splattergun]

Widespread gun ownership does not equate liberty. many cases in point include Somalia, Iran, Iraq, and so forth, that have a habit of fighting for favorite tyrants. Gun ownership only brings liberty when liberty is the goal and fought for with said guns. Case in point, a group of British colonies on the North American continent 237 years ago, threw off tyranny partly with the use of privately owned guns.

It's a matter of self-determination.