Asymmetrical Information

In Romania, where they know what to do with a dictator, all the young men were conscripted into the Army.

That made the Army the one institution in society that represented the people in general instead of the Communist Party or Causeceu. When the revolution came it was the Army that organized itself to root out the secret police and execute the dictator on television.

Another interesting question for gun freedom advocates is why the armies of the worst dictatorships don't revolt more often. They always outnumber the Communist party leadership, whether that party calls itself Communist or Baathist or National Socialist or Islamic Fundamentalist. The amry outnumbers and outguns the secret police.

We do know that Saddam routinely executes high officers in the Army. Maybe it's possible to enslave a gun owning nation if you are just able to execute anyone with the power to organize the people. It seems like a dangerous game, though. And modern encrytion will make it even harder to accomplish.

In defense of the theory, let's remember that as soon as the Soviets stopped providing outside secret police with no loyalty or connections to locals the tyrants of Eastern Europe fell quickly.

I never bought into the idea that gun ownership promoted freedom to begin with.

Whatever the benefits of gun ownership it sure ain't keeping a nation free. If the US government became dictatorial does anyone think that a bunch of gun owners would make an iota of difference? They would just be shot down.

Another reason for the contradictory behavior: they might all have guns, but they may not have any bullets.

I wouldn't put it past Saddam to push a bunch of century old rifles on people that either don't work or don't come with ammo.

What you are describing sounds a whole lot like the licensing system in New York for a gun. Sure, you have a technical right to own a gun but you have to know someone or be high enough profile to be able to browbeat a civil servant into letting you have one. If the writer lives in NYC, then it may seem like just like the US to him. It is all about perspective.

That report in the NYT was yet more evidence of how mediocre The Paper of Record has become. For a wooden-headed reporter to assert, and an obtuse editor blithely accept, such a broad statement without evidence, evidence that is nearly impossible to obtain in a totalitarian society, indicates a depth of ignorance that one would expect is the by-product of severe provincialism. They literally have no idea what totalitarian societies are like. Do these people read anything besides their own newspaper? The fact that Noah also accepts such nonsense at face value is indicative of his utter provincialism as well.

GT, I think you underestimate the difficulty posed by a heavily armed population, with a deep cultural history of anti-authoritarianism, to those aspiring tyrants who may try to dominate them. Even without such a tradition, it becomes problematic to cow an armed population which doesn't wish to be cowed. I don't know for sure, but it would be interesting to find out what the percentgae of firearm ownership was in the majority Sunni population in Iraq, prior to the minority Shia' Baathists gaining tyrannical control 40 years ago.

Have Neil McFarquar and Michael Bellesiles ever been seen together in public? Sounds like someone might be pushing an opportunistic agenda here, this time in an environment where fact-checking is a tad more difficult.

On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that the Iraqi government has painstakingly comprehensive records as to who has guns in areas they control (unless they destroyed them before the invasion). If most Iraqis do own guns, we'll know it soon enough, in detail.

Dave Kopel's examination of what happened to a nation that completely forfeited gun rights over time via eminently reasonable, cascading regulations/registrations/prohibitions is a worthwhile read:

All the Way Down the Slippery Slope

as they say, an armed society is a polite society.

personally i think it'd work just as well if we let people actually suffer the consequences of their actions, instead of trying to protect everyone from themselves and their own idiocy.

i remember a conversation where the other party (mis)quoted gandhi : "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

i responded : "an eye for an eye leaves a bunch of people who don't poke other people's eyes out."

sorry, a bit OT as well.

to get back on track:

yes, in the case of iraq i'd argue that not everyone has guns -- if it's the thugs that have guns, it's the thugs that stay in power. in the case of the kurds -- where the kurds were armed -- the thugs couldn't just "take over". they could use "higher scale" weaponry (a la chemical ali) -- but there's a reason the kurds have been ... almost autonomous all these years.

if the shiites were as well armed as the baathists, do you think saddam would have stayed in power the last twenty years?

I seem to recall reading that even though guns are easily accessible in Iraq and everyone owns one, the ammunition is not. Evidently, they have access to very old guns, but not compatible ammo. A gun doesn't do you much good without the firepower. Makes sense that Saddam would think of something like this. Keep "my people" happy credo. That old carrot seemed to work.

I wrote:
Another reason for the contradictory behavior: they might all have guns, but they may not have any bullets....

Then Kathy wrote:

I seem to recall reading that even though guns are easily accessible in Iraq and everyone owns one, the ammunition is not....

*sigh*

I would not be surprised that people in rural, especially desert, areas of Iraq own shotguns that they use for removing predator animals from their property. It's about economics, either you let the rats eat your crops or the coyotes (do they have such things in Iraq?) eat your chickens, or your kill them so your family can eat. Moreover, hunting game and birds provides a useful supplement to the food that you are able to raise on the family farm.

Generally, US troops have avoided cities except for the purpose of capturing bridges. Embedded reporters are most likely to encounter rural Iraqis and get the impression that there is a gun in every household. Rural people armed with shotguns are not enough to overcome or even seriously challenge a brutal regime that controls everything else and seems to have no qualms about killing large numbers of its own citizens.

Probably few people in cities, except the militia members who had no reason to oppose the regime since they probably received various forms of patronage from the regime, are likely to own guns. No doubt in time there will be a tremendous increase in crime in Iraq's cities because hordes of armed, jobless young men will be unleashed upon them by the collapse of the military - apparently this is already happening in Basra, and some people will note how street crime was virtually nonexistent in Saddam's time (well duh!), so why would Iraqi city folk have a reason to own guns, even apart from the sure knowledge that owning a gun was probably the best way to attract unwelcome attention from the local fedayeen?

Whoever gets the job of administering postwar Iraq will have a lot on their hands. Obviously there is the problem of getting systems for distributing food and water back into operation. In this regard, the worst thing would be to turn the job over to an army of aid workers from the usual NGOs, It would be better to reconstruct existing systems. Then there is the policing job. The numbers of coalition forces in Iraq is nowhere near enough to perform the policing job. Moreover, they would encounter the hatred that goes to occupiers when they try to enforce order. Some kind of Iraqi police force has to be established quickly; but how do you reruit police officers who are not tainted by association with the previous regime?

If it were truly cynical and did not care for the welfare of Iraqis, the best thing the US could do for itself is take the UN up on its offer and turn the whole mess over to them.

Ah. I see virtually everyone here is rejecting the story not because they know of any facts to the contrary, but because it contradicts their belief system.

According to the Noah piece, he did in fact confirm that ammunition was available.

The answer is simple. Owning a gun does not make you immune to intimidation by armed thugs. The most you can say about gun ownership is that is improves your chances of winning once you make the decision to fight, but you still have to be willing to make that decision.

I had heard the same thing as Kathy, that one could get guns, but not the ammunition. Without ammo, a gun makes a good club (or sword, if you have one that takes a bayonet).

Again, Kevin, he confirmed that ammunition was available at that time in that store. That doesn't tell us anything about how many people in Iraq were actually able to buy it.

I think Kevin has it; guns are well and good, but a lone gunman won't accomplish much and forming a militia or resistance cell is very difficult in a police state.

The poverty question is a good one, too; IIRC, the stories from the Kurdish areas stated that a AK47 ran $200-$400, depending on the make (going from cheap Arab-manufactured knockoffs, up though various Chinese models, with the real Russian ones being the top-of-the-line). Several hundred dollars is a lot of cash in today's Iraq.

I don't understand why this is even worthy of discussion.

To quote Noah: "[...] It's true that Chatterbox has chided MacFarquhar before for making fanciful seat-of-the-pants estimates. But MacFarquhar's piece provided testimony from gun shop owners that ammunition sales had risen as much as 50 percent in the runup to the war. He also provided eyewitness evidence (at Baghdad's Target Gun Shop and Trigger Gun Shop) that guns and ammunition are still sold freely and openly in Iraq. Even if he didn't demonstrate that most families have guns, MacFarquhar did demonstrate that most families have easy access to guns if they want them. Which is practically the same thing."

That's /it/?

That's the entirety of evidence that Noah, no friend of the NRA, found to blunt the criticism that McFarquhar had it wrong? A guy with a record of making fanciful estimates accepts the word of retailers at face value and draws a conclusion about the entire country from observing two gun shops in the capital? And from /this/ it's reasonable to expect a defense of ideas that contradict this, uh, "evidence"?

If I go to Palo Alto, CA -- where there's a Porsche dealership -- and observe that people are doing business at the place and that the owner says sales are up fifty percent since the last gubernatorial election, is there anyone reading this blog who thinks it would be reasonable to draw the conclusion that every household in Northern California either has a Porsche or has easy access to one?

Please, please tell me that for the $3 the NYT wants to allow me to read the article, I'll find at least /one/ more piece of evidence for this extraordinary conclusion of Noah's.

Noah and the NYT reporter and editor are either dunces, completely in the dark about the nature of totalitarian regimes, and what constitutes "evidence" that can be used to extrapolate assertions regarding the broad population, or they are simply pursuing an ideological agenda.

Two points:
1) a shotgun is, indeed, insufficient to fight back against an oppressive govt, because you must be able to attack at a distance (more than 300 meters) with reasonable penetrating power to actually be effective against armored soldiers. A shotgus has neither range nor penetration ability.
2) If there are a great number of old guns floating around Iraq, does this mean there will soon be another source of cheap, pre-WWII military surplus rifles to help feed my new-found obsession? Woo-Hoo! That's good enough reason to throw Saddam out of power aside from all the chem weapons or terrorist connection stuff. ;)

I hesitate to use logic in this discussion, but perhaps an armed populace is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for resistance to tyranny.

Without an armed populace, you got no chance (see the research by Kopel on gun control as a harbinger of genocide). However, guns laying around the house don't resist tyranny all by themselves(remember, guns don't kill tyrants, people kill tyrants).

You need a population that is motivated to resist tyranny AND has access to weapons. At this point we don't know if either applies in Iraq.

Kevin wrote,

"I see virtually everyone here is rejecting the story not because they know of any facts to the contrary, but because it contradicts their belief system."

Exactly.

At least McFarquar was actually in Baghdad, and saw a real gun shop. Everyone here is full of "I recall reading," and "I heard," and "I suspect" and "Probably," and "I'm willing to bet," and so on.

Everyone criticizes Noah for relying on inadequate evidence from McFarquar, but sees no need to have evidence for their own ideas about Iraq.

Will Allen accuses the NYT of ignorance or pursuing an ideological agenda, apparently without reflecting for a second as to whether the posters here might be accused of the same thing.

Isn't it just barely possible that they do have guns, and ammunition, but that it didn't matter? If not, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Earth to Mr. Yomtov: in case you haven't noticed, I'm not drawing a salary from an institution that markets itself as The Paper of Record, nor do I have a header over my posts that claims that I write "All the News that's Fit to Print". Do you really maintain that the NYT should not be held to higher standard than people who post in Assymetrical Information? Actually, that's not a fair question, at least in regards to my post, since I, unlike the NYT, have made no broad assertions as to the character of the Iraqi population. I have merely commented upon the stupidity of doing so based on one's observation of one shop in Baghdad, and the comments of a few individuals, particularly in a society in which the killing and torture of dissenters is a common practice. Of course, the NYT has a decades-long tradition of this particular form of idiocy; go do a google search of the name "Duranty". Tell ya' what, when the NYT starts giving away their paper, or when it starts marketing itself in the same manner as the Globe or Enquirer, I will retract my statements.

What is clear is precisely that this doesn't constitute enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

In this, people who reject the premise that Iraqis are be armed because it contradicts their belief systems are no more or less praiseworthy than those who unquestioningly accept that premise because it /fits/ their belief systems. The question that we should all -- regardless of their belief systems -- should be asking is not "Why is it that armed Iraqis haven't resisted tyranny?", but "How extensive, and how credible, is the evidence for and against the premise that the entirety of Iraq is or could easily be armed?"

And the evidence cited here so far is neither extensive nor particularly credible. I'm not prepared to say that MacFarquhar's conclusion is wrong, but I'm prepared to say I haven't seen nearly enough evidence that he's right for people to be trying to use it as a launch pad for pro-gun-control arguments. If not for any other reason, at least because that tactic could turn out to be embarrassing if he does, in fact, turn out to be wrong.

Geesh, that'll teach me to click "post" without careful proofreading. Try to ignore the grammatical errors.

Well, whaddya know. I present the following:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=4&u=/afp/20030408/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_marines_prison_030408163048

Civilians loot weapons from an army compound... as well as doors and furniture.

All I want to know is this: if they already had guns, why would they want more? To sell them? Who would they sell them to? The coalition forces wouldn't be too interested, I'm sure, and the only other people in Iraq with any money are most likely connected with the half-extricated Baath regime. To fight off the invading forces? I don't think even Saddam was stupid enough to withhold weapons from people who would be willing to fight Americans.

I can think of two reasons -- well, three: 1) to hoard until the return of easy commerce, 2) to defend themselves against Fedayeen thugs who might decide to try and drag them off to a gallows for the crime of waving at US tanks, or 3) combo: to hoard until the invasion leaves, so that they can defend themselves against whoever we leave behind (naturally I hope we won't leave, but I don't expect Iraqis to trust that).

If guns were an available yet useless measure in recent history, I seriously doubt they'd be so interested in augmenting their home stashes. Sort of like I don't believe people would be stealing doors if they lived in the lap of luxury.

At any rate, I can't help but feel a bit offended by the implied insult to Iraqi courage/fortitude in some of the above comments. They certainly seem to think they're capable of fighting tyranny... given the barest minimum of confidence boosts that comes with having the proper tools.

It might be necessary to have some basis for comparison before you can decide to resist tyranny. The American colonists did know of an existing better standard of government (the same government they were fighting, but in England where the voters were). Most Arabs have never, ever experienced anything but tyranny, and even if they were getting accurate reports on America, they likely lack the cultural references to understand them.

If you don't think a better gov't can exist, you aren't going to risk your life - and your whole family's lives - fighting to change it. (OTOH, fighting to topple one tyrant and replace him with yourself or your kin in the top position is considered worthwhile!)

The British are confiscating firearms from the people of Basra, so they must have some guns.

See this Washington Post story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42490-2003Mar28.html

"why the armies of the worst dictatorships don't revolt more often" Because the armies of the worst dictatorships are usually better-fed than the rest of the population, and are vetted for some degree of loyalty to the dictator.

The overall argument over civil arms in Iraq is moot, however. If the UN administers post-Saddam Iraq, they'll be disarmed anyway. They're being disarmed now by Coalition forces.

http://weckuptothees.blogspot.com/2003_04_06_weckuptothees_archive.html#92267514

I think that most of the points that Ms. McArdel makes in the original post are valid: Some trusted Baathist cronies can get guns, Saddam's thugs keep careful track of them, and the general populace is disarmed.

I've noticed that many of the people who left comments compared the situation in Iraq with their own experience. There seems to be some discussion as to what the rules are, and how they apply to common Iraqi civilians.

Let's not forget that we're dealing with a regime where one man's whims where like forces of nature for 25 years. The rules could change in an instant, and often would. If the change singled you out then you, your children, anyone related to you and anyone friendly to you would be rotten meat in the bottom of a ditch in a day.

Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that the Iraqi people could get firearms in quantity? If they could, then the bastiches who came in the night would be in a whole heap of trouble.

Or they actually think that parents would meekly turn over their guns and watch while their children were fed feet-first into the wood chipper.

James

Here's a story from the BBC confirming that large numbers of Iraquis have legal access to firearms: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2931131.stm

This post & the subsequent comments are the inspiration for a post over at my blog. Unfortunately the permalinks seem to be down again ( yes, it's at blogspot!)but it should be the first post for a while.

http://publicola.blogspot.com

To sum it up, the Iraqi's may have had the means to resist, but they lacked the knowledge &/or will to resist. The means are vital, but not sufficient without the other two components.

Not to worry though, the Brits are doing what they do best: disarming civilians. I honestly think Blair went along with this because he had run out of subjects to disarm at home.

Why was Saddam Hussein comfortable with the masses of Iraqis having guns? For the same reason, I suspect, that the rulers of the USA are cool with the masses of Americans owning guns.

America is a nation violently divided along many lines: race, class, gender, age, even things as petty as looks, intra/inter-family feuds, etc. I think that the ruling classes believe (IMHO, correctly) that in hard times, we'll take up
arms against EACH OTHER rather that those in power.

Similary, Saddam believed that, in a nation many have called the Yugoslavia of the Mideast, the Iraqui people would shoot each other. He (and I) underestimated thr revolutionary situation there. In retrospect, it seems that it required only a spark (the U.S. invasion) to set off the revolt...

Kevin:

You read that article, right?

The article talks about the large number of weapons in circulation. It does nothing to infer legality upon the ownership of those weapons; nor does it imply that their widespread possession pre-dates the looting.

Listen, if proof comes out that Iraqis had the same sort of arm purchasing freedom under Saddam that we have in the US, I will eat my shoe. I will. I'll send a picture.

After learning some facts about Iraq, such as common availability of military rifles for the general populace, and that Saddam Hussien wanted to give out 6 million ak47 rifles to the populace (unorganized militia).
The popularity of Saddam among the population, not everyone, but I think most Iraqis were "content" with him.
The fierceness of those loyal to Saddam.

I have yet to hear about Saddam setting up concentration camps or having any method to oppress his people, other than the usual governemnt bs that every other country has. I think Iraq govt. had LESS control over the population than, say the US does.

If the Iraqi "people" wanted to get rid of Saddam, then they could of killed Saddam when he would get up on his balcony and shoot his rifle.
They didn't because they didn't see a reason to remove Saddam.

Saddam Hussien did not run a dictatorship, but was a figurehead for the country that did nothing to the people, just stayed in Baghdad minding his own business, and allowing the Iraqi people to own thier property and carry on thier lives in peace, and own full auto military rifles at will.

The Iraqi people were freer before the fall of Baghdad than after.

In the news, the coalition is trying to collect guns from the civilian population in Iraq. Some freedom?

RR

Ewin:

You read the article, right?

Here's a quote:

"'Iraq has a culture of weapons. There are a lot of them around, most held quite legally,' said Captain Cliff Dare, of 3 Commando Brigade Engineer Group."

I think that quote makes it clear that the
article (and Captain Cliff Dare) "infer legality upon the ownership of those weapons" and I would argue that legality would "imply that their widespread possession pre-dates the looting."

May we at least expect to see some shoelace-eating pictures in the near future? (I agree that this does not prove that "Iraqis had the same sort of arm purchasing freedom under Saddam that we have in the US", but it is certainly a significant step in that direction.)

"I agree that this does not prove that 'Iraqis had the same sort of arm purchasing freedom under Saddam that we have in the US', but it is certainly a significant step in that direction."

I agree that it does not prove it either. Tell you what. I'll make a significant step in the direction of my shoes. :)

There's an excellent article on the sources and goals of the drive for gun control, "GUN CONTROL AND THE NEW WORLD ARMY", at http://www.survivalstskills.com/nwa.htm

It was originally on the 'New World Order Intelligence Update' site at http://www.nwointelligence.com, but has now been re-archived, together with:

'OPERATION GARDEN PLOT' at http://www.survivalistskills.com/GDNPLOT.HTM

'STATE DEPT DOC. 7277 - THE OFFICIAL PLAN TO DISARM AMERICANS' at http://www.survivalistskills.com/STAT7277.HTM

'THE PLANNED US AND CANADIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP AND DETENTION CENTRE PROGRAM'at http://www.survivalistskills.com/camp.htm and

'FEMA - AMERICA'S SHADOW GOVERNMENT' at http://www.survivalistskills.com/fema.htm

For some really chilling foretastes of the total surveillance planned for Americans, see the recent news items added to the "DECEIVING AMERICA" page at http://www.survivalistskills.com/kgb.htm

Sorry, folks - the links I included with my 'GUN CONTROL' posting don't work!

Try these re-coded links instead:

http://www.survivalistskills.com/nwa.htm.

http://www.nwointelligence.com.

http://www.survivaliskills.com/GDNPLOT.HTM.

http://www.survivaliskills.com/STAT7277.HTM.

http://www.survivalistskills.com/camps.htm

http://www.survivalistskills.com/fema.htm

For a substantial selection of other fascinating archived articles from the 'New World Order Intelligence Update', see http://www.rarehistorybooks.com/NWOLINKS.HTM

Comments are Closed.