"The real casualties of war"

I assume the article is true.

"The real casualties of war"

QUOTE
Clutching her daughter's photograph to her breast, Rebecca throws back her head and wails. Fighters burst into her home and raped the 10-year-old girl before the helpless mother, leaving the child lying in a pool of blood and vomit -- dead.
UNQUOTE

How many of you "gun-control, gun-grabbers, and gun haters" would have used a gun to defend your mother or sister or wife or daughter under the above circumstances, even if it meant your certain death?

I will interpret "no response" as proof that you, like me, would have fought to the death under those circumstances and thanked God if I had the arms to do so.

How does something that occured, quite tragically and horribly I might add, in an insane zone of what amounts to tribal warfare, relate to the civil society of The United States?

Beyond, of course, the subject being emotional and inflammatory...

If I was in that area, I would most likely be armed to the teeth, with plenty of reloads on my combat webbing. On the other hand, here in the US, I just don't run into a lot of need for being armed to the teeth, with a lot of reloads on my combat webbing.

guns will still be needed.

To your question, Jody - yes, I would defend my loved ones.

for an unreasonable and preposterous post.

If I was in that area, I would most likely be armed to the teeth, with plenty of reloads on my combat webbing. On the other hand, here in the US, I just don't run into a lot of need for being armed to the teeth, with a lot of reloads on my combat webbing.

you would not be allowed to possess any type of firearm to be armed to the teeth with.
(I do not know for certain Liberia's laws regarding possession, but with most dictatorships weapons of any type are allowed only for police and military)

This is precisely the point that RKBA people try to express, and the main reason for the second amendment.

As for me, there would not be a sole survivor to include myself if necessary.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth...and occupied Iraq still is.

Meanwhile in Liberia and its neighbors...

http://www.amacad.org/news/scourge.htm

large areas of Iraq were NEVER fully controlled by Saddam.

only Ba'ath-supporters could have guns. He repealed all gun laws just weeks before the invasions - probably the only liberal act of his.

And so that's how the Kurds managed to overthrow him in 1991.
NOW that's a steaming pantload!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does something that occured, quite tragically and horribly I might add, in an insane zone of what amounts to tribal warfare, relate to the civil society of The United States?

Beyond, of course, the subject being emotional and inflammatory...

If I was in that area, I would most likely be armed to the teeth, with plenty of reloads on my combat webbing. On the other hand, here in the US, I just don't run into a lot of need for being armed to the teeth, with a lot of reloads on my combat webbing.

... isn't interpreted as anything except disdain, can I claim dibs on one of yours?

;)

I read recently (I think it was the NYT) that the "peacekeepers" Liberia is relying on have in the past corrupted 9-10 year old girls as prostitutes. In fact, peacekeepers angry that these kids were going to another group that paid higher evidently killed some of them as a warning, leaving their decapitated heads between the girls' legs!

All the more reason Bush should really be proud of his display of manly leadership in Liberia.

...attrocities suchas the ones described in the article are occurring more often because the justice system in Liberia has fallen apart.

So this may be a case where the proper enforcement of existing laws would help ease the situation.

I stupidly looked at the URL (.za) and the quote, and assumed (eek) that the article was about South Africa. That was quite bad enough.

But it was about LIBERIA?!? (I see now, having read the whole thing.)

Someone was offering up an instance of a crime against humanity -- a vicious act of violence perpetrated as part of a campaign of intimidation and oppression against some segments of a society, committed by ... illegal combattants? ... in a civil war (or organized campaign of terror, whichever description you prefer) -- as an example of why private individuals need to be armed to the teeth in a society in which the rule of law is relatively intact??

And what exactly would said person think if I were to offer the same story as an example of why all firearms should be removed from the possession of all civilians in said other, not-at-war country?

About what *I* would think, I suspect. Which is why it would never occur to me to offer the story for any such purpose. I wouldn't want to look quite that dim or disingenuous.

.

It was written by Dr. Graca Machel. Liberals may have heard of her.

... Damn, damn. The speech used to be available on Oxfam's site: "Small Arms and Southern Africa". It no longer is. I can't find it anywhere else. If anyone does, please let me know.


Here's another, by the appropriately named Enough Sishi.
http://www.peacemagazine.org/9803/sishi.htm - excerpts:

Violence is so deeply entrenched that it is viewed as "part of life." The social acceptance of violence as part and parcel of human relations creates a "culture of violence." Michael Klare argues that global interdependence, mass media, and influence of international organizations are shifting power away from nation states toward powerful international forces, thereby creating anxiety and insecurity among ethnic groups. Modernization, the creation of a global village, was supposed to erode these identities, but instead has created anxiety among individuals, who turn to ethnic identities for support. Modernization has also created new ethnic elites who can provide leadership to their groups. Rootless individuals whose groups occupy unequal social classes are vulnerable to ascriptive mobilization and antagonisms that can burst into conflict.

South Africa; Identity, Violence And Small Arms

Together, small arms and identity played a big role in the violence of South Africa. One of the most important institutions in forming a link between identity and violence is the army -- in this case, both the SADF and the Mkhonto Wesizwe fostered insensitivity, aggressiveness and violence. Armed struggle by M.K. and the counter-insurgency measures by the SADF were identity-based violence. The ideologies that drove the different sides of soldier-identities in South Africa legitimized violence as means of obtaining and maintaining power. The slogan of the anti-apartheid movement, Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), "one settler, one bullet," is examples of violent indoctrination forming the soldier-identities of the resistance-apartheid era.

Like the rest of the region, Russia, China and Cuba backed the liberation movements with military equipment -- especially small arms, which were smuggled into South Africa by ANC operatives. Arms caches were created inside the country. General Bantu Holomisa opened up what was then a small bantustan, Transkei, to liberation movements as a base for launching operations. Large amounts of weaponry entered Transkei. To counter these developments and further the strategy of "divide and rule" the National Party trained and equipped the paramilitary force of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), a South African political organization headed by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, whose strength came from manipulating the anxieties of the Zulu ethnic group.

... Manipulation of ethnic identities became the electioneering strategy for the IFP. Finally the IFP was taken aboard the election process through a last minute promise to consider their worry about the Zulu Kingdom after the election. The success of the 1994 election has dramatically reduced violence.

However, after the election, disarmament strategies were not successful at all. In October 1994 a disarmament operation called "Rollerball" was started. It was a disaster. Four months later, the weapons seized by this operation consisted of only 70 AK47s, 93 hand grenades, 53 pistols, 316 limpet mines. This figure is nothing compared with quantities that had been supplied to IFP by the National Party and by the superpowers to the ANC.

The second major source is the internal armament industry. During the violent '80s and sensitive transitional stage the white population armed themselves alarmingly with legal firearms. By the early 1990s they were well armed but this acquisition of legal firearms continues and theft is still a major problem; there are still 2700 reports of stolen firearms every month.

...

Remember how Bush wouldn't go along with controls on the international proliferation of small arms ... because he wants to be able to help out all those oppressed peoples? Hmm. Anybody care to guess which side Bush might have supported in all that? I didn't see any reference there to the US arming the liberation movements.

http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jan99/03_00_001.html

Last year the South African Police Service destroyed or melted down 70 tonnes of small arms and ammunition, including 4,504 pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and home-made firearms.

Additionally, South Africa and Mozambique have jointly destroyed more than 100 tonnes of small arms and ammunition on site in Mozambique.

South Africa says it already has entered into agreements with several other Southern African states, with a view to curbing the trafficking of illegal small arms and ammunition.

Any experts out there care to estimate how many handguns, or machine guns, or combination thereof, there might be in a tonne? (A tonne is 2,200 pounds.)

I think I just heard on a CBC documentary rerun last night that Smith & Wesson's giant spiffy new handgun weighs 5 pounds. So, 440 of them in a tonne. 74,800 of them in 170 tonnes. Hell, let's say half the weight was ammunition, not really likely I'd imagine; 37,400 of them. The ones that were somehow got hold of and destroyed, alone, in one year, alone. Anybody else thinking (you don't have to admit it): Wowsers! ?

In an address to the UN Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that "the scourge of small arms continues to devastate civilian populations, creating humanitarian crises the world over."

"These weapons of personal destruction impair economic and social progress, and impede our best development efforts," he said.

But then, who cares about other people's human rights or economic and social wellbeing, when ya've got yr own "right" to swagger around with a concealed weapon to worry about, eh?

Under the apartheid regime, replaced by a multiracial government in 1994, South Africa was the world's 10th largest arms manufacturer.

Damn, I'm just not going to be the one who observe that firearms seem to turn up in the company of racists and fascists awfully frequently.

In its letter to Annan, South Africa points out that it "is committed to a policy of responsibility and accountability in the trade and transfer of all arms."

The government has established an arms control system which makes provision for a ministerial body to set criteria, principles and guidelines "to ensure the responsible transfer and trade in, among others, small arms and light weapons."

South Africa has also introduced legislation which requires the licensing of all civilian small arms, including a requirement for the safe storage of such weapons.

Lemme see whether I've got this straight. A democratically elected, multi-racial government is implementing firearms control policies. How can that be??

.

Now, to get back to our sheep, and the actual problems in South Africa. Anybody remember that stuff about income disparity? How in some places, the upper one-fifth, say, of the population gets just a huge amount more than its "share" of income, while the lower one-fifth doesn't get much at all? That "Gini index" stuff?

The Gini index is a measurement of the disparity of income distribution in a country; figures for individual countries can be found at the CIA's factbook site.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fbhome.html

The higher the figure, the less equally income is distributed. A few examples:

South Africa -- 59
Zimbabwe -- 57
US -- 41
Russia -- 40
China -- 40
UK -- 36
Australia -- 35
Canada -- 32
Norway -- 26
Sweden -- 25

Anybody else noticing a general pattern? Remember the Canada-US study that concluded that income inequity seems to be a useful predictor of homicide rates?

South Africa's pattern of income distribution is far more unequal even than the US's -- and of course has much less income to go around in the first place. (Average income has also been found to be a not too shabby predictor of homicide rates.) Maybe we could fairly confidently predict that S. Africa is going to have a fairly high rate of crimes of violence. I humbly submit.

I'd even be willing to wager a small amount -- maybe Spentastic can help me out -- that income disparity in the UK has been increasing in recent years, along with perhaps some changes in other social and demographic factors that might be predicted to lead to higher violent crime rates ... without even considering the impacts of illegal trafficking in arms into the country.

Ah yes, here we are: http://www.ncpa.org/pd/unions/pd081601g.html

Income inequality rose and unionization fell in both the United States and the United Kingdom in recent years:

- From 1980 to 1990, the ratio of the 10 percent highest to the 10 percent lowest paid men rose from 2.7 to 3.5 in the U.S. and from 2.4 to 3.1 in the U.K.

A bit out of date, but:
http://poverty.worldbank.org/library/view/13024/

Of course, my question would be why anyone would think that adding lots of firearms to volatile mixes like these would ever be a good idea ...

So knowing all this stuff, I'd have to wonder why anyone would (purport to be) surprised at the horrible levels of violence in South Africa. Or think that the private possession of firearms would be a SOLUTION to that violence as a matter of public policy. Or, yes, as has been said, think that the situation in South Africa had anything at all to do with the situation in the US, for example.

Of course, if the US continues down its neo-liberal road, leading to even greater income disparity and even more impoverishment and despair in the lower-income segments of the population, while at the same time allowing the numbers of firearms in private hands to proliferate, I'd hope that no one would be surprised to find him/herself living in something resembling a South African township.



.

More generally on these issues, here are some other things that liberals might be interested in reading:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/themes/smallarms/default.htm
"Small Arms: Issues and Themes"

.

the corrupt gun industry got pResident Turd to torpedo the UN's attempt to limit small arms trade....the internet was buzzing with "The UN is trying to take our guns!" horseshit.

http://www.clw.org/atop/inside/inside49.html

I was just quoting this one the other day here:

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0108arms_body.html

Small Arms Trafficking in the Americas

... The United States chooses to ignore the extent of this dynamic and sees any effort to address the matter as potential infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens to own firearms. At the UN conference, Bolton assured that "the United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

In the Americas, the consequences of ambivalence could be substantial. When peace comes to Colombia, thousands if not millions of small arms and light weapons--many of U.S. origin--will need to be decommissioned before they filter throughout the region and overseas.

In pandering to the gun lobby, the Bush administration showed what little regard it has for strengthening international efforts to deal with trafficking in small arms. President Bush promised to elevate the status of the Americas in his foreign policy. If he intends to follow through on this promise, his administration must realize that the problem of illicit trafficking in small arms is more complex and serious than the attention it gave to it at the UN conference, and acknowledge the implications for the Americas.

But of course, that's just a bunch o' liberals' opinion.

.

definitions of what "small arms" and "non-state actors" are, giving machetes to the Bosnian muslims during the Yugoslav civil war of the early 1990's would be considered "pandering to the gun lobby."

Small arms is a catch-all term which includes various weapons such as machetes, rifles, hand-guns, and landmines (due to volume, links to landmines sites will be available on a separate page).


Former Argentine President Carlos Menem has been accused of shipping arms not only to Croatia in violation of a UN embargo, but also to Ecuador during that country's 1995 border dispute with Peru while Argentina was serving as mediator.

Speaking as a member and not a moderator, I feel that this is an exceedingly inappropriate question. It reminds me exactly of how Mike Dukakis was ambushed in the 1988 debates with the question about whether he would support the death penalty for a man that raped and murdered his wife.

Even if civil order broke down completely in the US, the question is still theoretical to the point of irrelevancy. Despite the historical ties between the US and Liberia, there is no comparison between the two places.

I am, frankly, surprised at the generally civil tone that's been maintained in this thread. I thought it would be a first class flame war.

Dirk

We have another thread on this forum by a DU member who was recently robbed. At least one person replied implying that it was wrong to kill anyone. If someone is truely a pacifist, then I admire them.

On the other hand, many perhaps most people have a point beyond which they would use a gun or other arms to defend themself or others. For those people, the question is what does it take to make them appreciate the concern and fears that motivate law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms when exercising their inalienable right to defend self and property.

Federal law clearly includes keeping and bearing firearms as a "civil right".

Once we've established that people who are anti-RKBA or gun grabbers or gun controllers or gun haters do have something in common with the pro-RKBA group, then and only then can we discuss laws or enforcement programs that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals while protecting the rights on law abiding citizens. That is the Democratic Party Platform.

I'm not surprised that people who responded are civil because the article I posted strips naked the full horror of victims. There is no place for flames and snide jokes when discussing crimes described in the article and the same goes for crimes in the US.