Private Gun Ownership

[sigatoka]

Gun Ownership by private citizens usually has negative effects because the Marginal Benefit is fully captured by the user but the Marginal Cost is lower than the Marginal Social cost. This means that the cost that the private citizen pays for the gun is not the full cost of the gun because guns are used to kill other people and if this happens to be other citizens of the country than it reduces internal security, contributes to destabilization and acts as a brake on commerce and development.

Therefore gun ownership in nations such as U.S. and Britian which do not border hostile nations has counterproductive effects. On the other hand a nation such as Pakistan which is bordered by a hostile powerful neighbour could indeed make use of Private gun ownership.

For example a citizen who resides 5km from the Indian border who acquires ownership of a rifle gives spillover benefits to other citizens. This is because should Indian forces attack Pakistan, that rifle would be used against them. But as the distance between the border increases, the spillover benefits lessen because the chances that weapon will be used against foreign aggressors reduces, while the chance it will be used internally against citizens increases.

Therefore the Pakistan government should allow AK-47/AK-74 gun ownership to citizens who live within 30km of the Indian border without any restrictions or taxes. Citizens who live outside this range should have their gun ownership restricted by a tax or ban on ownership.

This will enable Pakistan to make use of civilians to improve security without a proportional increase in gun crime internally against fellow citizens.

Having said this, private citizens should not be allowed access to Heavy Machine guns, RPG's or Mortars. This will ensure that Pakistan's military will still be able to exert authority over these areas.

 

[Bull]

Originally posted by sigatoka+Mar 27 2006, 07:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sigatoka &#064; Mar 27 2006, 07:47 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>For example a citizen who resides 5km from the Indian border who acquires ownership of a rifle gives spillover benefits to other citizens. This is because should Indian forces attack Pakistan, that rifle would be used against them. But as the distance between the border increases, the spillover benefits lessen because the chances that weapon will be used against foreign aggressors reduces, while the chance it will be used internally against citizens increases.


This will enable Pakistan to make use of civilians to improve security without a proportional increase in gun crime internally against fellow citizens.

[post=7832]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

I have heard that ur govt did the sme thing by arming the talibans and tribals in western border to beat the enemy.havent u learned a lesson from that?
Moreover when is civilians used to defend enemy forces? it only happens if IA gets thru PA,which happens to be the well kept arms among the three forces of pakistan.

And what guarantee can u give that these gunsa not move into the city after its issued in the border areas.

Your argument of giving Ak 47 to border area population is screwed bcoz the tension doesnt happen say every week of the year,and when it faisl to happen what will these guns do?its definite to proliferate these guns to main cities where as it is there is no dearth of automatic weapons.


<!--QuoteBegin-sigatoka@Mar 27 2006, 07:47 AM
Having said this, private citizens should not be allowed access to Heavy Machine guns, RPG&#39;s or Mortars. This will ensure that Pakistan&#39;s military will still be able to exert authority over these areas.

[post=7832]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

So u still are doubtfull about your own eople that they might switch ends to fight the very pakistani est., that u r depending on the army to exert authority over these areas/pop.

 

[A.Rahman]

Originally posted by Prashant@Mar 27 2006, 01:01 AM
I have heard that ur govt did the sme thing by arming the talibans and tribals in western border to beat the enemy.havent u learned a lesson from that?
Moreover when is civilians used to defend enemy forces? it only happens if IA gets thru PA,which happens to be the well kept arms among the three forces of pakistan.

Wasnt it US that gave Millions of &#036;&#036;&#036; to Talibans, wasnt it CIA that trained them, if Taliban got the guns form Pakistan with the money that US gave them, then whats wrong with that ?

Saddam armed Iraqi civilians and made it hell for the US army, Iran is doin same.

also having arms helps people to get rid of unjust governments.

I say dont arm them..... yet..... we can have an ammo depot in every city/state.

The day IA invades country, I say then arm the people, not only with gun but also with advanced weapons like, Man portable SAM&#39;s. Also make it mandatory for the people to serve is the army atleast one year(like Isreal). So they know the basics of warfare

And what guarantee can u give that these gunsa not move into the city after its issued in the border areas.

well if the move in and out after IA invade then we really dont care.

Your argument of giving Ak 47 to border area population is screwed bcoz the tension doesnt happen say every week of the year,and when it faisl to happen what will these guns do?its definite to proliferate these guns to main cities where as it is there is no dearth of automatic weapons.
So u still are doubtfull about your own eople that they might switch ends to fight the very pakistani est., that u r depending on the army to exert authority over these areas/pop.

[post=7844]Quoted post[/post]​

Then we will take it back like when soldiers are given guns and taken back, they usually dont run away with it.

 

[sigatoka]

Originally posted by Prashant@Mar 27 2006, 06:01 AM

And what guarantee can u give that these gunsa not move into the city after its issued in the border areas.

its definite to proliferate these guns to main cities where as it is there is no dearth of automatic weapons.

So u still are doubtfull about your own eople that they might switch ends to fight the very pakistani est., that u r depending on the army to exert authority over these areas/pop.

[post=7844]Quoted post[/post]​

There is no need for a guarantee that it will not move into the cities. All that there needs to be is a mechanism for control. Should people be caught with guns away from border areas they should be charged with a crime and fined and/or jailed. This will ensure that while some guns will move around, it will not be excessive.


The aim of giving small arms to border civilians is not to use them as the primary mechanism to stop invasion. It is only to give them something to protect themselves with and offer support to proffessional ground forces. They should not be overarmed because heavy weaponry needs extra training and expertise and therefore is better suited to proffessional force. By giving them heavy weaponry, they will not be as effectively utilised as they will be in the proffessional army.

The ability for the army to exert control is important. Every modern (non-idiot) nation in the world recognizes that and has nothing to do with trust.

 

[sigatoka]

To clear up some misunderstandings, there is no need for government to "give" the guns to (Indian) border population. All the government will do is allow border population to purchase rifles. Because the border population will purchase the guns, there won&#39;t be a flooding of rifles.

If people are very concerned about "flooding" an area with weapons, an auction type activity could be arranged. In this activity around 20,000-40,000 rifles could be auctioned by the government to border areas. In this way, people could feel comfortabe that there wont be excessive guns in an area.

India would never undertake such an activity because it has overwhelming conventional superiority as well as 2million troops. Some people believe that strategies of all nations should be similar, this fails to account for the fact that weaker nations must make use of assymetric strategies if they are to neutralise the conventional superiority of stronger nations.

In 1967 Israel easily defeated Egypt&#39;s conventional forces to invade and annex the Sinai peninsula. Had the Egypt&#39;s liberalised rifle ownership among the population in Sinai, a more effective defence could have been mounted. Still unconvinced, look only to Fallujah. A civilian population lightly armed is able to prevent effective control by Foreign forces.

Pakistan&#39;s security could be boosted by liberalising assault rifle ownership along the border area. Even 20,000 rifles would dramatically increase the difficulty of Inidian forces to occupy Pakistan&#39;s border towns and Cities.

 

[Bull]

well what i can read from your opinions is that

1. You believe that IA will break thru the PA defences

2. pakistan will crack one day that it will have to resort to iraq style insurgency to oust IA

3. Giving 20,000-30,000 automatic rifles is not flooding&#33;&#33;&#33;

4. You expect the people to take up guns to remove a GOP.

 

[sigatoka]

Originally posted by Prashant@Mar 27 2006, 10:26 AM
well what i can read from your opinions is that

1. You believe that IA will break thru the PA defences

2. pakistan will crack one day that it will have to resort to iraq style insurgency to oust IA

3. Giving 20,000-30,000 automatic rifles is not flooding&#33;&#33;&#33;

4. You expect the people to take up guns to remove a GOP.

[post=7871]Quoted post[/post]​

1. Its possible but I dont believe that it will happen. I believe in probabilities.

2. The mere act of of preparing for an insurgency can prevent one. Am i talking giberish? Not really. When Pakistan is well prepared to fight an insurgency, the cost of invasion of Pakistan by India increases to take into account the insurgency. Therefore an invasion becomes less likely and an insurgency can not occur without an invasion. It is much like nuclear weapons, their possession reduces chances of war.

3. It is not, but limiting rifle numbers might be necessary politically because people might not be willing to accept 100,000 rifles in civilian hands. But rifle numbers are subject to diminishing returns. The first 30,000 will be wielded by the most healthy and aggressive individuals. The second 30,000 slightly less so. Therefore the first 30,000 rifles will be better utilised than the next 30,000

4. No, there is no need to maintain two parallel armies. There is no need to give heavy weaponry to civilians when its best use requires training and expertise which only the proffessional military posseses.

 

[Bull]

1.So bcoz of a probability you want to arm civilians with automatic rifles.And what if the event never happens what will this guns do, guns are meant to fire and that they will at any cost.



2.Pakistan isnt well prepared to meet insurgency,PA is using heavy machineery to quell the eastern areas.Nowa s per your theory u will have hot western border also.

3.U mentioned that these guns can be used by the people to throw away a govt that they dont like,now what if 15000 ak 47 people like the govt and the other 15000 doesnt like the govt.

What does your game theory tell you.

 

[Sid]

All of you sound like its a child&#39;s game to hand out guns to the civilian populace. It is a total destruction theory and nothing else. IMHO, guns should rest with the armed forces and the police. Civilians should act like civilians. Countries like Israel are a bad example because they make military training &#39;necessary&#39; for all adults which means, hardly anyone is a civilian as they can all readily take up arms against a foe should they be called up on.

Paramilitaries and police are to be depended up on (even for guerilla warface) if the foe breaks through your army&#39;s defenses. This is because when civilians get involved, it becomes messy for all parties involved due to the fact that the &#39;rules of engagement&#39; hardly apply in such scenarios and the already thin line between a civilian and an insurgent becomes even more blurry.

 

[sigatoka]

Prashant I am getting slightly irritated at your inability to understand that probabilites in this situation are dynamic. Handing out weapons to civilians has an effect on the probability of invasion, that is it lowers the probability of invasion. Why? Because the Marginal Cost of Invasion from Indian POV increases to take into account effect insurgency. Invasion occurs when Marginal Benefit equals Marginal Cost. Since Marginal Benefit is unaffected by handing out weapons while Marginal Cost increases, the probability of invasion decreases. Get it???

2. Guns can increase the lethality of civil disobidence, I don&#39;t disagree. Therefore from Pakistan POV distributing Guns to border civilians has a Marginal cost. The cost is that the guns could be used against other civilians or Pakistan. On the other hand there is a strong Marginal Benefit because of decrease in probability of invasion. These effects can be easily modelled, the Quantity of Guns released will ensure that these Two values equal. And i am sure that this two values dont equal at quantity of zero. Therefore some rifles in civilian hands on the Indian border will increase welfare of Society.

3. Prashant, equal Marginal Benefit to Marginal Cost. There are costs and Benefits. The efficient qty of guns is to equalise Marginal cost to Marginal Benefit.



Countries like Israel are a bad example because they make military training &#39;necessary&#39; for all adults which means, hardly anyone is a civilian as they can all readily take up arms against a foe should they be called up on.


Sid, I am not suggesting compulsory military training. Only that border population be allowed to PURCHASE certain quantity of rifles.

This is because when civilians get involved, it becomes messy for all parties involved due to the fact that the &#39;rules of engagement&#39; hardly apply in such scenarios and the already thin line between a civilian and an insurgent becomes even more blurry.

Is that a bad thing?? Shouldn&#39;t Civilians be allowed not forced to contribute to liberating their nation from Invasion? Its not like compulsory conscription which I oppose on Economic and philosophical grounds.

 

[Bull]

Originally posted by sigatoka@Mar 29 2006, 05:57 AM
Prashant I am getting slightly irritated at your inability to understand that probabilites in this situation are dynamic.

[post=8032]Quoted post[/post]​

Its understandable mate, but still i dont buy into this argument.
Sid has summarised it very well.

Civiliand are civilians, and soldiers are soldiers.

Arming the border villagers with arms when free movement of people is possible.You&#39;ll never know where this guns will end up.


There are some mnay petty fights and anger among the various sections os society ,between families ,btw relatives, btw neigbours. You might see each of them ending up using a AK 47.

 

[EagleEyes]

Private gun ownership exists in foreign countries because they believe that a federal government may take away the rights of the states and limit freedom of the citizens. Its all because of the government and British theory. Our governments are already weaken enough why weaken them more?