Guns and Iraq. Would there be 3000 plus dead american soldiers if we took all the guns form the Iraqi's.?

Question

Before people make stupid comments or accuse me of trying to make light of the VT tragedy, let me say that is not the intent of my question. I have nothing but sympathy for the victimes and thier families.

After the US invaed Iraq, Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom decided it would be a good idea to let each Iraqi keep one firearm. Had we taken all thier firearms would things in Iraq be as bleek as they are now?

And I'm not a liberal so don't think about calling me one either.

Answer 1

I have a better question, would there be 3,000 plus dead american soldiers if G.W. weren't trying to prove something to himself?

Answer 2

I don't know how many American soldiers would be dead, maybe more, maybe less.

All I know is a gun is not the only way to kill somebody. Many deaths and injuries come from suicide bombers and IEDs. So, I don't think it's logical to connect Rumsfeld's action with death counts.

I also think the difficulties in stabilizing Iraq go so far beyond just gun control that it's almost not even worth mentioning.

Answer 3

Ideally, the day the world burns all guns & weapons to ashes, will be the start to real peace. In the now, real world though, guns, war, and murder are the reality. Since "evil's" objective is to triumph over "good" - (even, using guns to further, the cause), "good" has to employ equal force to "rise to the occassion". It is "righteousness" that will exalt our North American culture. As the U.S. and their backers continue to neutralize the faction groups within Iraq (with guns when necessary) , Iran continues to prep for war with Israel and their supporters. The real question should be, "Will there be dead North Americans & Israelies if we don't go into Iran and remove the regieme of their guns (nukes) ?

Answer 4

When I was in Iraq, I could probably count on both hands how many times I was shot at by guns. I lost count, however, of how many times things around me went BOOM. I asked a translator (Iraqi local national civilian) once your question, more or less. He told me if I wanted an AK-47, he could get me as many as I wanted. He said there is probably hundreds of thousands of them in the country, still brand new in the crate hiding all over the place. Take it for what it's worth.

Answer 5

I guess the fact that many of the war dead were killed by IED and not weapon fire has gone over your head?

Wake up. We aren't fighting Iraqis. We are fighting foreign fighters who choose to go to Iraq to fight the Coalition, specifically the US, and we are delivering them from evil, as is their wish.

I would like you to show me a war of this magnitude that produced as few KIAs as this war has. Five years and 3000+ killed, I am sorry but that is not nearly as drastic as nearly every other war, if not all wars, in history.

Honor these men and women; they represent the very best of us.

Army Strong

***** to yet_another_realist ****

The second amendment states the following:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the civil populace being able to resist a rogue American Government, should that ever happen, or another invading force should the US Government be incapacitated or incapable of resisting such a force, which God willing never will happen. It is about protecting ourselves. No one cares about the "right to hunt".

so, once again, unless I read it incorrectly, the second amendment is NOT the Right to Hunt.

Answer 6

the terrorist aren't using there own personal firearms. They are using illegal ones. If we took away every Iraqis firearm we would leave the law abiding ones defenseless and mad at us. This would create more enemies for us. We would still have the terrorist because most of the illegal arms are smuggled in from Iran and Pakistan.

Answer 7

I think we shouldn't have gone to Iraq for the wrong reasons, based on a lying government. They are responsible for all the soldiers that had to die for the wrong reasons.
So many families are grieving loss.
Taking away guns from anybody wouldn't have helped a thing, they will appear from somewhere else anyway. It would have been an unfair fight even more so, if they had done so.

Answer 8

No, you obviouslt aren't liberal.

Because you're more worried about the American soldiers than anything, plus you seem to have confused the "bad guys" with Iraqis in general, which is just plain ignorance.

Answer 9

Seeing that most of the American deaths are caused by explosives yes there would be 3000 plus dead Americans.

Answer 10

Since most have been killed by roadside IEDs, I'd say it wouldn't have changed the body count much.
Liberal or not, the question you should be asking is, "Would there be 3000 dead American soldiers if our President and his puppet masters hadn't lied, relying on the fears of 9/11, to get us in that mess in the first place?". There's your question.

Answer 11

You could have taken the guns but the gun trade is one of the biggest import/export bussinesses in the entire world. More would have come.
And remember many of the terrorists come from other surrounding countries.