Iranian gun rights

[mickeyhinesss]

Tried to research it a bit and couldn't really find anything, but what is the gun ownership situation in Iran? It's easy to say the public can't have guns but you see in so many of these Middle East countries people with guns in militias and the like. I sort of infer that there is gun ownership rights for the ruling class but don't know. It's a good case study. The government appears to run rough shod over everyone including the foreign press booting them out of the country. The Iranian government can now impose its will in the worst way against the people. This couldn't happen in an armed society.

[vranasaurus]

It would make little difference if the people in Iran were armed. They would be little more than a nuisance to the Iranian military.

In fact it might give the Iranian government cover to just start killing people en masse. "Well we had to put down the armed resistance"

It really boils down to the number of people that turn out to protest not the number of guns they have.

[carguychris]

...but you see in so many of these Middle East countries people with guns in militias and the like.
Be careful applying generalizations to Iran based on the rest of the Middle East. Iran is Persian, not Arab. This may seem like splitting hairs to many Americans, but the two cultures are very different, and Iran is very different than most Arab countries.

Iran has traditionally had a well-established civil society and a strong central government. On the other hand, most areas throughout the Arabian peninsula, the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and the Hindu Kush have historically been ruled by loose-knit networks of feudal warlords and tribal leaders who may have paid tribute to a distant monarch but who really didn't answer to anyone on a practical day-to-day basis. The modern-day Islamic militias are an extension of this culture and only exist because the central governments in some of these countries have historically been weak and impotent.

The Persians nee Iranians have historically viewed these people and this system as a dire threat. They may support militias in other countries for political reasons, but they would never allow them to exist within Iran.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting question as it speaks to the idea that the armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. Or is it that if the level of discontent rises to such a level and infiltrates the government's instruments of force (military and police) such that they won't take action against the public?

There are examples of that. In the first Iranian revolution - the armed forces didn't back the Shah. In the overthrow of the Soviet Union - the same happened.

It is not uncommon when using armed force against political demonstrators to get units not associated with the protestors - from another region or social class. In Ohio, at the time of Kent State - some of the National Guard units made up of college kids told their officers that if they were told to fire on other college kids, it might not go well for the officers. Remember a fair number of them were in the Guard to beat the draft.

[johnwilliamson062]

The modern-day Islamic militias are an extension of this culture and only exist because the central governments in some of these countries have historically been weak and impotent.
You will notice there is only one militia mentioned in Iran and it is very closely tied to the government. I would guess it is more closely related to some sort of extremist cross between the VFW and national guard than what we would consider a militia.

A five mile stretch of protesters reported today.

[SIGSHR]

Rights under a dictatorship? Sounds like an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. I suspect the politically reliable-the police, Komiteh, Revolutionary Guards, etc., all have access to firearms but not the masses.

[carguychris]

You will notice there is only one militia mentioned in Iran and it is very closely tied to the government. I would guess it is more closely related to some sort of extremist cross between the VFW and national guard than what we would consider a militia.
Just to clarify, I was talking about militias that exist outside government control and may even act as a parallel government, along the lines of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Mahdi Army. The Iranian militia- name of which I have forgotten- is more of a government-sponsored paramilitary than these organizations.
Rights under a dictatorship? Sounds like an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms.
Iran is not a classic dictatorship. It has a constitution, an elected legislature, and an elected president; after all, the past week's problems are due to a disputed presidential election. It also has a tradition of rule of law and a basic framework of human rights, although those rights are generally not compatible with Western ideas of civil rights. In fact, the main impetus behind the Islamic Revolution was to reestablish civil rights and the rule of law, since the Shah, who was a classic dictator, had thrown both out the window. :(

Although the Supreme Leader can overrule or even remove the President and the Guardian Council (which is appointed by the Supreme Leader) can overrule the legislature, the President and the legislature seem to have more independence than this system would initially suggest. In fact, the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council have indicated that they are going to intervene in the dispute about the election, and have hinted that President Ahmadinejad may have overstepped his authority.

[oldcspsarge]

I heard an Iranian in Denver interviewed on the radio who had twice today talked with his family in Iran.

When asked why there was not more resistance, he replied private ownership of any firearms in strictly prohibited in Iran. :mad:

Only security guards, police and military can have them. He went on to say this happened many years ago....and to be sure and not let it happen in the USA !:eek:

He said the Iranian Military was on the peoples side and had agreed to remain neutral. The Other Army is under the control of the Iatollas...who need to go.

[mickeyhinesss]

Quote: It would make little difference if the people in Iran were armed. They would be little more than a nuisance to the Iranian military.

In fact it might give the Iranian government cover to just start killing people en masse. "Well we had to put down the armed resistance"

It really boils down to the number of people that turn out to protest not the number of guns they have.

I don't know about that. Surely the Iranian military is made up of at least some folks with the same mores and values as the populace. I would bet it is one heck of a lot harder to be sent to "deal with" folks who you may deep down agree with especially if there is a chance you could die for a cause you aren't all the way on board with. After they initially shoot up a crowd, going house to house to route out trouble makers is much tougher if they are armed.

I've heard this argument before that the military will just run rough shod over an armed populace. People automatically assume that the military members will stay in lock step with their command. Taking on an unarmed people makes it much easier to stay in lock step.

[Al Norris]

Surely the Iranian military is made up of at least some folks with the same mores and values as the populace.
Are you sure?

Western culture is radically different from that of the Persians. Or most any other middle eastern culture, if you really want to make comparisons. The entire western concept of "rights" and "individuality" is foreign to their thinking.

See here (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html) for a list rights contained in Chapter III of the Iranian Constitution. Read it closely, to see what I mean.

[mvpel]

He said the Iranian Military was on the peoples side and had agreed to remain neutral.
How chicken**** of them. They'll remain safely neutral while the foreign Hamas thugs kill and brutalize the people whose side they claim they're on.

Hopefully the citizens will come to realize that now is their moment, and that they may never have another chance in this generation or the next to stand together with a dozen other freedom-loving people to yank a baton-wielding jackbooted totalitarian thug off of his motorcycle and snap his f---ing neck.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Second, even if defeated electorally, the Islamists and their regimes have a trump card: guns. Guns trump cellphones. Bang-bang beats tweet-tweet. The Sunni Awakening in Iraq succeeded because the moderates there were armed. I doubt Ahmadinejad will go peacefully.

This from Thomas Friedman of the NY Times. Does it sound like an endorsement of the 2nd Amend.'s purpose? I wanted to comment but comments were closed.

The Times is usually horrified at the idea of the 2nd, so I find this statement so sweet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17friedman.html?ref=opinion

[mickeyhinesss]

I don't read the Times much but Friedman seems a little more main stream than Rich, Dowd and Krugman. Even so it is strange to see a columnist from the NYT follow that line of thinking. That's a funny line "bang bang beats tweet tweet".

[carguychris]

Surely the Iranian military is made up of at least some folks with the same mores and values as the populace.
True. Here's the thing that many commentators seem to be forgetting to mention: Ahmadinejad controls the police, but the military is controlled by the Guardian Council. From what I can tell, this structure was written into the Iranian Constitution as a check on the power of both agencies. It probably also explains why Ahmadinejad seems to be showing some degree of restraint in breaking up the protests. There has been no sign of an all-out Tianamen Square-style crackdown as yet.

It's going to be really interesting to see how this shakes out.

[vranasaurus]

An armed populace uprising and a military coup are different and independant things.

An armed populace is not necessary for the military to revolt.

[nemo2econ]

The question asked was: what is the gun ownership situation in Iran?

The best recent data I know of on that is from a recent paper by David Kopel et al published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics.*

For Iran, the number is 0.053 firearms per citizen, about the same as the UK. Israel is only 0.081, Switzerland and Finland approximately 0.5 while the US tops the list of 59 nations at 0.90 firearms per citizen.

Download the paper at the link below if you are interested in more data from this very useful journal article.

* Is There a Relationship between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results from 59 Nations (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090441), David B. Kopel, Carlisle E. Moody, and Howard Nemerov; December 23, 2008, Texas Review of Law and Politics, Vol. 13.
Abstract: There are 59 nations for which data about per capita gun ownership are available. This Article examines the relationship between gun density and several measures of freedom and prosperity...
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090441

[v65magnafan]

In a weak moment, I suppose, an Iranian-Canadian friend of mine disclosed that (some? most? all? He didn't elaborate.) mosques have arms caches buried on the property just waiting for the right moment.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Interesting question as it speaks to the idea that the armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. Or is it that if the level of discontent rises to such a level and infiltrates the government's instruments of force (military and police) such that they won't take action against the public?

Good question Glenn. I am inclined to believe the former rather than the latter of that question. Somalia has an armed populace and certainly a lot of tryanny too. In many ofthe revolutions I have read about (like the Russian Revolution of 1917) when the military refuses to fire on the demonstrators the game is up pretty much.

Some believe that an armed unorganized untrained populace can defeat a well-trained army but I don't think history shows that. The one thing that I haven't read a lot about is whether there is truly a majority who is dissatisfied or is it just the middle class? Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Shadi Khalil]

How chicken**** of them. They'll remain safely neutral while the foreign Hamas thugs kill and brutalize the people whose side they claim they're on.

Of all the nonsense and misinformation that has come out of the whole Iranian debacle, the Hamas story is by far dumbest. If you believe that then you have a very bleak understanding of the situation in Gaza....

As for private gun ownership in the Middle East, in most countries in requires allot of money or knowing the right people. These are countries with governments who control the entire country. There are allot of places (Yemen) that have strict gun laws but open air gun markets. In Egypt, it is very hard to get a permit for a pistol but in the desert, among the Sinai Bedouin, is a heavily armed population. The government knows but really cant do anything about it.

As for the Iranian situation, I believe the arms would do nothing to further their cause at this point. Like another poster said, it would just give the government the excuse they are looking for. Their is an armed Militia operational within Iran, actually two. There is the MEK or Peoples Mujahidin and another Kurdish group. Neither of which have any interest in supporting Hossein Mousavi, who answers to the same guy as Ahmadinjad. Other than those too, its pretty much the army and the revolutionary guard.

[Crosshair]

How chicken**** of them. They'll remain safely neutral while the foreign Hamas thugs kill and brutalize the people whose side they claim they're on.
Be careful. If you don't let a group remain neutral, don't be surprised if they side with your opposition. The army says it is on the side of the people, but if push comes to shove, that is not 100% certain.

Hamas involvement is unlikely and largely rumor. There appears to be some Lebanese Hizbullah involvement though.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just a warning - don't try to avoid the language filter. No %_#)# stuff.

Also, I've been reading the 'experts' and my conclusion (which some experts have) is we have no idea how this will play out. Esp. the American based experts and politicians who are trying to score points with their brillant analyses on various cable shows.

I'm sure before the French Revolution - no one would have predicted the King and Queen would end up without their heads and a few years latter France would try to conquer Europe.

[Shadi Khalil]

There appears to be some Lebanese Hizbullah involvement though.

While very unnecessary it is far more likely than a bunch of Hamas members getting on a plane and flying out of the country. Egypt is just as if not more so intolerant of Hamas than Israel. Hamas members can go to Cairo for Israel sanction talks with Egyptian and PA official but thats it.

I think that this uprising will fizzle out or just be repressed. Any military action from outside countries will wash away any "progress". I think its best third party countries not meddle to much and let this play out. As for rights, I'm sure once this is over, the Iranians will lose allot of them.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think it is interesting how our media is hyping it as an oncoming massive revolution. Both the left and right wing cable types see it this way, but I think the fizzle is probably the best bet. But what do I know.

[Shadi Khalil]

I think it is interesting how our media is hyping it as an oncoming massive revolution. Both the left and right wing cable types see it this way, but I think the fizzle is probably the best bet. But what do I know.

Seems you know about as much as the Mossad because that is their assesment. :)

But those are the same people who said Iraq had the bomb so what do they know. :)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, I'm currently listening to Daniel Silva's Israeli Secret agent books on CD when I drive, so I am probably a spy master of international scope. :D

[Shadi Khalil]

Well, I'm currently listening to Daniel Silva's Israeli Secret agent books on CD when I drive, so I am probably a spy master of international scope

Innocently masquerading as a gun board moderator. Are an art student too?

:)

Here is something I found that sheds a bit (tiny bit) of light on the discussion..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Also, some side info...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3735527,00.html

My bet is the government will really crack down once the numbers are small enough and people stop caring. Hossein Mousavi will be either put on indefinite house arrest or detained by the state and charged with some sort of treasonous/anti revolutionary activity. I doubt they will let him flee the country (I heard on al-arabyia he is looking for an out) and create a sort of government in exile.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Gabriel has more talent than I do. We are just going to have to see how this plays out. Listening to the radio today an Iranian commentator said it took 1 year or so for the Shah to be ousted by demonstrations in the street.

The issue will be whether enough of the people support a change such that it weakens the security forces. Playing rural recruits against urban demonstrators has worked across the world. Even in the USA.

[carguychris]

The issue will be whether enough of the people support a change such that it weakens the security forces. Playing rural recruits against urban demonstrators has worked across the world. Even in the USA.
I think Mohsavi's next important test will be whether he can sway any significant factions within the police, military, or Basij militia to his side.

News reports are saying that the Basij consists largely of ultra-right-wing Ahmadinijad supporters, and that large gangs of them are riding around Tehran on motorcycles and breaking up protests. If history is any guide, it is only a matter of time before some of these guys get way out of line. If someone films them doing something outrageously abusive, it may prompt fragmentation of the police or military, which can only help the opposition.

I think that this raises a great question pertaining to the 2A in the USA. IMHO a good reason for the 2A is not necessarily to allow the militia to stand up to a professional army, but to prevent the over-concentration of arms and power in the hands of one particular militia.

Again, if history is any guide, a single government-sponsored militia often winds up being used to violently quash dissent amongst the populace. OTOH if the populace can raise their own militia, this could dissuade a power-hungry government from being tempted to establish a powerful paramilitary force in the first place. Discuss. :)

[nemo2econ]

Attorney and Second Amendment scholar David Kopel is asking for any information on Iranian gun laws. See below.

Iranian gun laws bleg:

The Small Arms Survey suggests that Iran's per capita gun ownership rate is 0.053 (that is, about one gun for every twenty people). This is fairly low by global standards. (See Tables 6 and 7 of my recent article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics.) Could commenters please supply information about the gun laws of Iran, and how they are enforced? What kind of people in Iran are allowed to own guns? What kind of guns? Please don't get into a discussion of whether the Iranian protesters would be better/worse off if they had guns. Just supply accurate information, with citations if possible. Comments based on personal experience from people who have lived in Iran, or visited Iran, are welcome.


Here is the link: http://volokh.com/posts/1245743719.shtml

As stated, he is only looking for accurate information, preferably with citations. So please don't go over to his blog to debate "whether the Iranian protesters would be better/worse off if they had [certain] gun [laws].

[godofredus]

The connection liberals make between gun laws revolution and incidentally capital punishment are faulty but the connection made by conservatives in this blog seem to be the same.
My favorite case is Mexico, where there is no capital punishment; handguns cannot be owned (total handgun ban); long guns (hunting rifles) are very strictly controlled, and of course has one of the highest firearm murder rates in the world.
Liberals say no capital punishment no handguns no murders. Conservatives say no capital punishment no handguns only criminals will own guns. Which apparently is true in Mexico EXCEPT it looks like everybody owns a gun.
Yet when demonstrators demonstrate in Mexico they seem to be unarmed. Go figure.
If the Mossad says there are too many variables here, I agree with them

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NY Times today had a fairly decent portrayal of the Fizzle and the reasons why a good deal of Iran supported the Mullahs. However, one columnist - Roger Cohen who was all a twitter at first about the end of the Mullahs is now stating that the women of Iran showing their hair is a sign of the end. Many of the comments indicated that he was naive but some were all for the cultural empowering that will overthrow them. Somebody (;)) pointed out that the Times' view of the 2nd Amend. vs. Friedman's analysis vs Hairdo power might need some rethinking.

Defending or obtaining liberty through hairdo and cultural dance festivals is a potent strategy - don't you think? Another article pointed out that mostly peaceful regime changed occured when the security forces turned on the dictators for their own self-interest. But the Time's editorial board and some columnists live in a dream world.

[v65magnafan]

The NY Times today had a fairly decent portrayal of the Fizzle and the reasons why a good deal of Iran supported the Mullahs.

I scanned the NYT and couldn't find the reference to support of the Mullahs. I also haven't read every post in this thread, so I might be repetitive. So, I apologize in advance.

I have a fair number of friends who immigrated from Iran, and I'm fairly close to two ex-Tehran families.

That said, I can tell you that a fair number of Iranians supported the Mullahs as an alternative to Shah. They found out, in a few years, that they were worse off.

However, the Iranians are accustomed to living "in the closet" so to speak. The Iranians, or Persians, had to succumb to Arab Islam under threat of the sword. To survive, most Iranians put on an Islamic public face. This is essential for education, career advancement, and simple survival.

The Iranian Mullahs prescribe an Islam that is appropriate to Arab countries. I'll stay away from an explanation of that, lest I offend a TFL member or two. Be assured, though, that Persians have much more respect for Israel and the US than they do for Saudi Arabia, and I'll leave it at that.

The Mullahs for years have tried to force their brand of Islam onto a country the nerve center of which, Tehran, is educated, sophisticated, progressive, and Zoroastrian in culture and maybe faith. The Mullahs, for example, have tried to stamp out Zoroastrian cultural celebrations. They have had mixed success. And, it's as easy to get a bottle of good single malt in Tehran as it is in Los Angeles, I am told.

The only people who want the Mullahs to keep power in Iran are the Arab-ethnics in the outlying provinces and the uneducated folks. This generalization is probably fairly accurate.

Now, to the topic at hand. Gun control in Iran.

Oldcspsarge is correct. Private ownership of firearms is prohibited. One of my Iranian friends tells me that Shah confiscated all civilian firearms. After the revolution, the armories in Iran were opened and civilians armed themselves.

The Mullahs later demanded the return of all firearms, and executed people to make their point. After the firearms were returned, the Mullahs began their systematic execution of tens of thousands of civilians, many of whom were supporters of the Mullahs before the revolution--Communists, etc.

(So, if you know any lefties in North America who support the Islamic view--anti-Israel and all that, you might want to tell them that when Islam takes over, they and their families will be the first in line for torture and death.)

Anyway, another Iranian friend of mine tells me that mosques all over the country have buried arms caches waiting for the right moment. Obviously, the people who invented the game of chess don't think that the right moment is now.

One little-known fact is that the Iranians who consider themselves Muslim to not consider their own Ayatollah to be the supreme voice of Shia Islam. Rather, they respect Sistani--over the border in Iraq. He's the spiritual leader who encouraged Iraq's nascent democracy by saying that Shia Islam and a democratic political system can co-exist.

My best guess for the near future? The street demos have quieted down because they cannot compete with Michael Jackson. Behind the scenes, all sorts of interesting stuff is being set up. Alliances are being formed. Weapons are being acquired--the border between Iraq and it's zillions of AK's is probably porous right now.

Cash is flowing out of Iran as fast as the Mullahs and their corrupt buddies can shovel. Can anyone in the banking industry corroborate this? And where is it going?

To end on a note re The New York Times. I think that if any editorialist at the NYT recommended an armed civilian population, his head would roll. But we all know that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/weekinreview/28sanger.html?ref=world

I think this was the article trying to explain the nuances about opposition to the regime.

About support from the provinces - the militia guys were supposedly young and devout folks from the boonies who would be willing to assail protestors.

But what do I know - I don't want to commit the sin of the babbling experts on our media who don't really understand the situation, so thanks v65... for insight.

About the Times, yep - they are hard core against guns editorially. They are still ranting Guns in Church. Blah.

But, I was taken by that little bit by Friedman - tweet tweet vs bang, bang - should be taken up by us.

[v65magnafan]

You're right about the militia guys--the Basij.

The Iranians in the street heard these guys speaking Arabic. When that rumor hit the blogs, it was assumed that they were from Hezbollah or Hamas. This could be. I don't know of anyone who checked flight manifests from Lebanon or Syria to verify this.

The Arab-speaking Basij could easily be impoverished unemployed from the Arabic speaking Iranian provinces. This is not to say that Hez and Ham thugs weren't there as well.

One "eyewitness" in Tehran stated that the Iranian Basij were housed in dorms but the Hezbollah thugs were housed in hotel rooms. We may never know the truth.

I believe that this had all better be worked out by the fall, or Israel will put an end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, one way or another.

You would be amazed at how many secret meetings are going on among Saudis, Egyptians, and Israelis. The Saudis have decided that the Iranians are a bigger enemy than the Israelis.