Gun Master Debate

[UltimateApathy]

I love it when ignorant brainwashed NRA puppets try to disregard all the facts/stuidies/statistics in a matter to try fit their illogical world view (bred in a tiny redneck corner of the world) into the broad global picture as if has some meaning. It's already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by numerous facts and statistics and logical reasoning that:

a) more guns don't make a society safer
b) more guns in a society mean that more criminals have guns, which means the violent crimes that are committed are even more heinous.
c) the possibly of ever actually defending yourself successfully with a gun are very low
d) a huge proportion of violent crimes in America are committed with the aid of guns
e) the more guns in a society, the more likely some psycopath is going to pick one up and slaughter a whole lot of innocent people.
f) an excess of guns also makes the job of the police more difficult and dangerous
g) America has a much much higher rate of gun-related murders/crimes/accidents compared to any other democratic first world country in the world because the society is so overflowing with guns.
h) some people (read "brainwashed puppets) genuinely believe that resisting the "evil tyrannical government" is a valid reason for owning guns.
i) most of the guns used in crimes in the USA are actually purchased legally
j) the NRA uses their political clout to avoid or skew gun violence studies
k) The NRA does a great job of brainwashing people with propaganda to be their talking monkey-puppets on strings as we have seen in this topic
l) States in the US with stricter gun control have lower levels of gun crime
m) I could go on and on with these, but it's obvious to anyone with a logical mind unclouded by political propaganda that very strict regulation og guns is favorable to a society as a whole as opposded to making deadly firearms widely available to the general public.

And now more fun stuff:

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/study-carrying-a-gun-can-make-you-more-paranoid/10875

Study: Carrying a gun can make you more paranoid

I don’t own a gun. But if I did go around with one, I’d probably be very much on edge since I’ll quickly start to notice that a lot more people were packing heat too.

That’s what researchers at University of Notre Dame have concluded after conducting a study to determine whether the simple act of wielding a gun alters the way people see the world. Previous studies have already suggested that visual perception can be highly subjective, depending on your attributes. For instance, it’s been shown that people with broader shoulders tend to perceive doorways to be narrower, and softball players with higher batting averages perceive the ball to be bigger. However, can just picking up a gun suddenly make the world appear more violent?

To find out, the researchers subjected volunteers to a series of five experiments in which they were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment — such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they judged the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation, the study showed that responding with a gun created a bias in which observers reported a gun being present more often than they did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

“Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer’s ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns,” said James Brockmole, a professor of Psychology and a co-author of the study . “Now we know that a person’s ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act.”

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that while simply letting observers see a nearby gun didn’t influence their behavior, holding and using the gun did.

“One reason we supposed that wielding a firearm might influence object categorization stems from previous research in this area, which argues that people perceive the spatial properties of their surrounding environment in terms of their ability to perform an intended action,” Brockmole said.

The study is detailed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Weapons

Does the presence of weapon increase aggression and aggressive thoughts? Does the trigger pull the finger? Is the individual born with aggressive behavior or is there anything else which makes the person start to think aggressive? In this research, I would like concentrate on the issue of weapons and its presence as an elicitor of human’s aggressive behavior. The weapon or gun by itself is well – established phenomena of aggression. Seeing a gun provokes in people’s mind some kind of violence, attack, hatred, or revenge. Hence, all fall under aggressive thoughts that can escalate into violent behavior. However, how do people know that they are acting aggressive? Individuals are not born with knowing and sensitizing of how aggression is displayed. Individuals have to learn what it means to be aggressive and how to distinguish between aggression and its processes. Aggression is a learned behavior, the same as learning how to pull the trigger, and also understand how action or words can be hurtful to the victim (Buss, A., et al, 1972, p.196). In this paper, I would like to discuss the correlation between guns and aggression, and its application into the real world and finally, apply the theory into the massacre in Columbine High School.

As mentioned above, weapons are known phenomena of aggression. The presence of guns facilitates the aggressive thoughts under certain conditions. If the individual is in any stage of arousal, sadness or anger, the presence of weapon increases the chances of thinking and acting aggressive. Because of the fact that aggressive behavior is the subject of examination for decades, researchers are trying to resolve the issue and find the exact conclusion of what makes people feel aggressive. In Berkowitz and LePage study, male college students were tested if the presence of a gun increases the hatred against the accomplice who provoked the students at the beginning of the test. The study shows that presence of violating objects, such as guns increase the anger and aggressive thoughts in angry students. On the other hand, the non angry participants did not feel any difference in a presence of gun. Even if the gun is not involved as a part of action in the study, just the presence of it increases the aggression in provoked subjects. Such findings could be an impulse for regulation of the sale of dangerous guns. However, in a study of Buss and his colleagues they try to oppose Berkowitz’s findings about gun-increasing aggression. In one part, they concluded that firing a gun had no effect upon aggression, other group of participants shows that if the individual is familiar with gun use and is experienced with it then it does not make any difference upon his behavior. The last part of the study was a very close replication of Berkowitz’s test and surprisingly showed that the presence of gun reduces aggression against the accomplice. The findings show that individuals who were aware of the hypothesis, or who were generally suspicious were not influenced by the presence of gun. (Buss, A., 1972, p.202) The ones who were unaware of the hypothesis produced more aggressive thoughts and behavior. The most important finding is that it significantly depends on type of the subjects. Also, other studies checked the hypothesis in naturalistic settings. Turner et all. , stalled a pickup truck at a traffic signal light for 12 seconds. There was a gun placed on the back window of the truck and half of the motorist saw a bumper sticker on the tailgate saying “vengeance”. The other half saw a bumper sticker saying “friend”. Motorist in the control group saw neither gun nor bumper sticker. The results showed the most horn honking group of motorist was among the ones who saw a gun and vengeance sticker. The following group was members of who saw the gun and sticker friend and the last one were the ones who saw just the truck. The comparison shows a positive relation between gun and aggressive behavior and the theory of gun presence-increase aggression is applied in this particular study. (Turner et all., 1975, Study 2).


The use of weapons and the feeling of power they give to a perpetrator, might be perfectly depicted in well-known massacre at Columbine High School. ”Weapons are used in a quarter of violent incidents in the US” (Rand and Catalano, 2007), and carrying a gun in schools is an important and politically salient topic. What makes adolescents want to carry a gun to school? According to researchers Wilkinson Deanna L. and Fagan Jeffrey, carrying a gun, among youths, is for the feeling of safety from physical danger or from other students. According to their study, “About one in seven (15%) reported carrying a handgun in the past 30 days, and 4% reported taking a handgun to school during the year. Nine percent of the students reported shooting a gun at someone else, whereas 11% had been shot at by someone else during the past year.” (Wilkinson, D., L., Fagan, J. 2001, p.111). The Columbine High School incident surely involves use of guns. Many researchers agree that aggressive thoughts among adolescents are closely related to media, the accessibility to violent video games and also violent music. Aggression is not perceived as dangerous act as it was before. Teens do not realize the potential menace of aggression because their surrounding and technology that influence them do not evaluate the danger they can cause. Shooting in Columbine was a cold blooded act which can cover all aspects of aggressive behavior from teens. According to Cullen, D., report published in USA Today News, one of the shooter, Harris, was described as a psychopath who was aware of his behavior. He was deep planning, knew how to be charming and at the same time fooling everyone around. Trebold had serious psychological problems as well. However, Trebold was in suicidal depression who was hating life day after day. In relation to the weapon effect – increasing aggression issue, the Columbine massacre is a different process. It is obvious that guns were used, although not as an elicitor of aggressive behavior. The event was planned for months by the pair and guns played a big part in this planning. After looking at the statistics of wounded and shot students, we can assume that there might have been some increase in violent behavior. Many students were not shot just once, but they usually had several shots in their bodies. Killers shot student’s in heads, neck and chest several times. Psychologist Cullen D. described Harris’s profile as a “cold-blooded, predatory psychopath — a smart, charming liar with "a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control," (Cullen, D., USA Today). There might be some correlation between the number of shots against the students and their psychological profile. Nonetheless, operating a deadly weapon increase his desire of being superior to others and having the control is what influenced his behavior toward wounded students. At the end, they turned the gun against themselves and ended their lives after killing 13 people and seriously wounded 24.

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

World Top Ten Countries With Highest Reported Crime Rates

Country

Crime Rate



United States

11,877,218



United Kingdom

6,523,706



Germany

6,507,394



France

3,771,850



Russia

2,952,370



Japan

2,853,739



South Africa

2,683,849



Canada

2,516,918



Italy

2,231,550



India

1,764,630








The crime-rates map shows the world top ten countries with the highest reported crime rate.This map tells us about the number of crimes that took place per 100,000 people.

Data indicated on the map of countries with the highest reported crime rates is based on house hold surveys, hospital and insurance records, FIR recorded by police or by law enforcement agencies.

Map of countries with the highest reported crime rates clearly indicates that countries of Europe and America are the least safe countries in the world. Asia even though not that economically sound is far safer as compared to the ten countries listed on this map United States with 11,877,218 is the most unsafe country in this list while India, with 1,764,630 is the safest.

 

[UltimateApathy]

 

[Dak]

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

World Top Ten Countries With Highest Reported Crime Rates

Country

Crime Rate



United States

11,877,218



United Kingdom

6,523,706



Germany

6,507,394



France

3,771,850



Russia

2,952,370



Japan

2,853,739



South Africa

2,683,849



Canada

2,516,918



Italy

2,231,550


India

1,764,630

The crime-rates map shows the world top ten countries with the highest reported crime rate.This map tells us about the number of crimes that took place per 100,000 people.

Data indicated on the map of countries with the highest reported crime rates is based on house hold surveys, hospital and insurance records, FIR recorded by police or by law enforcement agencies.

Map of countries with the highest reported crime rates clearly indicates that countries of Europe and America are the least safe countries in the world. Asia even though not that economically sound is far safer as compared to the ten countries listed on this map United States with 11,877,218 is the most unsafe country in this list while India, with 1,764,630 is the safest.

Wow, neither this website nor UA know the difference between Total Reported Crime and Crime Rate. Rate = ratio. Total numbers =/= ratio.

As far as India goes, if you believe that the Reported Crime statistics are accurate, I've got a bridge to sell you.

As far as the study about holding a gun leading to "paranoia", it left out a critical piece of information: Were the people in the pictures in fact holding guns? First, to detect a weapon on someone is not paranoia. Secondly, to think someone might be armed is not paranoia. You would actually need to BE paranoid about the person being armed. Like you are UA. The article mainly points out that you perceive your space in terms of how you can interact with it. Nothing to argue with there, and hardly some sort of argument against guns.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Wow, neither this website nor UA know the difference between Total Reported Crime and Crime Rate. Rate = ratio. Total numbers =/= ratio.

As far as India goes, if you believe that the Reported Crime statistics are accurate, I've got a bridge to sell you.

As far as the study about holding a gun leading to "paranoia", it left out a critical piece of information: Were the people in the pictures in fact holding guns? First, to detect a weapon on someone is not paranoia. Secondly, to think someone might be armed is not paranoia. You would actually need to BE paranoid about the person being armed. Like you are UA. The article mainly points out that you perceive your space in terms of how you can interact with it. Nothing to argue with there, and hardly some sort of argument against guns.

If only you could hear yourself, you sound like nothing more than a cackling parrot writing off any and all statistics and facts that disagree with the brainwashing that you've been programmed with. Two studies by psychological experts detailing the negative effects of guns on the human psyche and yet you, a retired military grunt, feel free to simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if you were Sigmund Freud himself - very laughable yet patheically myopic at the same time. And that map is based on a ratio of crimes per 100000 people, did you forget to rerad the fine print. While there certainly may be some higher levels of unreported crime in some countries, there's still no ignoring the massive difference here: America has 11 million reported crimes a year which is 5 million more than the nearest country on that list, and 10 million more than India - a country of over a billion people. Would you really expect us to believe that 9/10 of all crimes in India go unreported? And even then it would still only be tie with the U.S. The point is that having more guns around certainly doesn't mean a society is safer or has less crime.

Here are two differing examples of how tighter gun control laws (regarding who gets them and why) can lead to safer societies.

http://news.yahoo.com/around-world-gun-rules-results-vary-wildly-075244259.html

JAPAN — THE NANNY STATE

Gunfire rings through the hills at a shooting range at the foot of Mount Fuji. There are few other places in Japan where you'll hear it.

In this country, guns are few and far between. And so is gun violence. Guns were used in only seven murders in Japan — a nation of about 130 million — in all of 2011, the most recent year for official statistics. According to police, more people — nine — were murdered with scissors.

Though its gun ownership rates are tiny compared to the United States, Japan has more than 120,000 registered gun owners and more than 400,000 registered firearms. So why is there so little gun violence?

"We have a very different way of looking at guns in Japan than people in the United States," said Tsutomu Uchida, who runs the Kanagawa Ohi Shooting Range, an Olympic-style training center for rifle enthusiasts. "In the U.S., people believe they have a right to own a gun. In Japan, we don't have that right. So our point of departure is completely different."

Treating gun ownership as a privilege and not a right leads to some important policy differences.

First, anyone who wants to get a gun must demonstrate a valid reason why they should be allowed to do so. Under longstanding Japanese policy, there is no good reason why any civilian should have a handgun, so — aside from a few dozen accomplished competitive shooters — they are completely banned.

Virtually all handgun-related crime is attributable to gangsters, who obtain them on the black market. But such crime is extremely rare and when it does occur, police crack down hard on whatever gang is involved, so even gangsters see it as a last-ditch option.

Rifle ownership is allowed for the general public, but tightly controlled.

Applicants first must go to their local police station and declare their intent. After a lecture and a written test comes range training, then a background check. Police likely will even talk to the applicant's neighbors to see if he or she is known to have a temper, financial troubles or an unstable household. A doctor must sign a form saying the applicant has not been institutionalized and is not epileptic, depressed, schizophrenic, alcoholic or addicted to drugs.

Gun owners must tell the police where in the home the gun will be stored. It must be kept under lock and key, must be kept separate from ammunition, and preferably chained down. It's legal to transport a gun in the trunk of a car to get to one of the country's few shooting ranges, but if the driver steps away from the vehicle and gets caught, that's a violation.

Uchida said Japan's gun laws are frustrating, overly complicated and can seem capricious.

"It would be great if we had an organization like the National Rifle Association to stand up for us," he said, though he acknowledged that there is no significant movement in Japan to ease gun restrictions.

Even so, dedicated shooters like Uchida say they do not want the kind of freedoms Americans have and do not think Japan's system would work in the United States, citing the tendency for Japanese to defer to authority and place a very high premium on an ordered, low-crime society.

"We have our way of doing things, and Americans have theirs," said Yasuharu Watabe, 67, who has owned a gun for 40 years. "But there need to be regulations. Put a gun in the wrong hands, and it's a weapon."

___

SWITZERLAND — GUNS AND PEACE

Gun-rights advocates in the United States often cite Switzerland as an example of relatively liberal regulation going hand-in-hand with low gun crime.

The country's 8 million people own about 2.3 million firearms. But firearms were used in just 24 Swiss homicides in 2009, a rate of about 0.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. The U.S. rate that year was about 11 times higher.

Unlike in the United States, where guns are used in the majority of murders, in Switzerland only a quarter of murders involve firearms. The most high-profile case in recent years occurred when a disgruntled petitioner shot dead 14 people at a city council meeting in 2001.

Experts say Switzerland's low gun-crime figures are influenced by the fact that most firearms are military rifles issued to men when they join the country's conscript army . Criminologist Martin Killias at the University of Zurich notes that as Switzerland cut the size of its army in recent decades, gun violence — particularly domestic killings and suicides — dropped too.

The key issue is how many people have access to a weapon, not the total number of weapons owned in a country, Killias said. "Switzerland's criminals, for example, aren't very well armed compared with street criminals in the United States."

Critics of gun ownership in Switzerland have pointed out that the country's rate of firearms suicide is higher than anywhere else in Europe. But efforts to tighten the law further and force conscripts to give their guns back after training have failed at the ballot box — most recently in a 2012 referendum.

Gun enthusiasts — many of whom are members of Switzerland's 3,000 gun clubs — argue that limiting the right to bear arms in the home of William Tell would destroy a cherished tradition and undermine the militia army's preparedness against possible invasion.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Your propaganda overlords are ignorant and psychotic, and rely on mindless pawns like you believe their ridiculous lies:

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/104975/nra-fast-and-furious-holder#

The NRA’s Shameless, Fact-Free Conspiracy Theorizing about the Obama Administration

Among the more curious aspects of Eric Holder’s standoff with Congress over Fast and Furious, a gun-walking operation conducted between 2009 and 2011, is the air of conspiracy theorizing that hangs about it. Especially curious is that some of the most paranoid theorizing finds its source not in far-off Internet chat rooms, but in a well-appointed office building in northern Virginia—the headquarters of the National Rifle Association, the country’s biggest firearm lobbying organization.

In June, the NRA’s Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, posted a letter on the organization’s website accusing Obama of crafting a “grand strategy to use Mexican drug cartel crime as an excuse to advance their gun control agenda, shut down law-abiding gun stores and rip the Second Amendment right out of our Bill of Rights.” LaPierre even implied that the death of Brian Terry, the Border Patrol agent killed along the border in Dec. 2010, was a byproduct of Obama’s hidden anti-gun agenda, telling The New York Times, “There is a belief among a lot of people—and I believe it too—…that the Justice Department facilitated a crime to further their gun control political agenda.”

However feverish the NRA’s stance, it’s clear that it has made an impact—not least, on the 17 Democrats who voted in favor of holding Holder in criminal contempt of Congress on June 28. Each of those Congressmen faces competitive reelections in conservative districts, and none of them could afford to tempt the ire of the NRA. After all, the executive director of the NRA had warned in a June 20 letter to the House of Representatives that it was planning on “consider[ing] this vote in our future candidate evaluations.” I asked Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA’s Director of Public Affairs, what motivated this decision. “Two very good reasons,” Arulanandam replied. “Truth and justice.”

Arulanandam’s avowed idealism aside, there’s little to commend the NRA’s theory that Operation Fast and Furious was part of a grand “gun control agenda” directed from the White House. A January 2012 House Oversight report debunked any allegations that the Obama administration attempted a cover-up of a “politically motivated operation.”

And in point of fact, the Obama administration has actually loosened gun laws, even garnering criticism from anti-gun groups for legislation allowing people to carry concealed weapons in national parks and checked luggage on Amtrak trains.

When I asked Arulanandam regarding Obama’s gun control record, he responded: “It’s a misconception that this administration is gun-neutral. The gun/parks legislation was attached to bills this administration desperately wanted.” But it’s hard to see why evidence of political compromise is sufficient for existence of a criminal conspiracy.

But here lies the greatest flaw in the entire accusation: The gun-walking (a tactic in which ATF permitted the sale of firearms to known criminals in hopes that they would lead them to powerful cartels) that is the most controversial aspect of Operation Fast and Furious started under the Bush administration, during an operation dubbed Wide Receiver. Arulanandam distinguished between these two operations by asserting that unlike Fast and Furious, the firearms under Wide Receiver were installed with transmitters (allowing them to be traced).

According to Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, however, the closest existing claim is that some, but certainly not all, of the guns in Wide Receiver had tracking devices. In an emailed response, Winkler wrote, “Apparently, the tracking devices had to be manipulated to fit into or onto the weapons, which often resulted in breakage or the devices otherwise rendered ineffective. They also revealed that the sources of the weapons couldn't be trusted.”

Robert J. Spitzer, Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at SUNY-Cortland and the author of four books on gun policy, also could not verify the existence of these transmitters. “I cannot find any confirmation that there were actual transmitters [in Wide Receiver],” Spitzer says. Instead, according to Spitzer, the closest evidence suggests that some firearms were tracked using serial numbers, erroneously labeled as electronic transmitters by right-wing websites.

Regardless, even if some firearms did contain electronic transmitters, a considerable number of weapons were still lost in Mexico during Wide Receiver. As Winkler added, “It only makes sense that law enforcement would stop using tracking devices that had proven ineffective.” Yet the NRA has made no suggestion that the Bush administration’s Justice Department set a grand anti-gun conspiracy into motion.

So why has the NRA argued so strongly, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Obama administration is involved in a massive anti-gun conspiracy? The simplest answer would be that the NRA is desperate for an election-year issue, and they saw Holder’s contretemps with Congress as their best chance. “They need to pin the gun control conspiracy on something,” says Winkler. “The NRA thinks gun rights will be safer under Romney. So they use this claim that Obama’s refusal to push gun control is actually representative of a greater conspiracy to push gun control.”

In short, the NRA is accusing Obama, a remarkably gun-neutral president, of concealing a conspiracy using a gun walking strategy he didn’t even start. But what is most alarming is not that the NRA is engaging in such baseless conspiracy theories. It’s the fact that the organization’s flawed logic holds such powerful sway in Washington’s halls of power.

 

[EffigyForgotten]

Why the fuck is this crap still going on? Why hasn't this guy been banned yet?

 

[Summerian]

Why the fuck is this crap still going on?

Because it's still on.

]Why hasn't this guy been banned yet?

Because engaging in a debate isn't a crime.

 

[Dak]

If only you could hear yourself, you sound like nothing more than a cackling parrot writing off any and all statistics and facts that disagree with the brainwashing that you've been programmed with. Two studies by psychological experts detailing the negative effects of guns on the human psyche and yet you, a retired military grunt, feel free to simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if you were Sigmund Freud himself - very laughable yet patheically myopic at the same time. And that map is based on a ratio of crimes per 100000 people, did you forget to rerad the fine print. While there certainly may be some higher levels of unreported crime in some countries, there's still no ignoring the massive difference here: America has 11 million reported crimes a year which is 5 million more than the nearest country on that list, and 10 million more than India - a country of over a billion people. Would you really expect us to believe that 9/10 of all crimes in India go unreported? And even then it would still only be tie with the U.S. The point is that having more guns around certainly doesn't mean a society is safer or has less crime.

Ah, an appeal to authority now? Another logical fallacy. Studies are conducted all the time, and often flawed (read any peer review of a study and small sample size is usually a strike). Maybe these weren't, but important data was withheld in the article.

It doesn't matter what the map showed, that's not what you cited. The figures you posted aren't crime rates, and you called them crime rates.

And if you knew anything about India, you wouldn't ask such an absurd question. Over 1 billion people in what is still a developing country. In most places in the country there's nowhere to report a crime if you tried. An article on the law enforcement situation in India:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/article5.htm

You also have to remember you are citing all law violations (crime) which includes crime against the state. Who gives a shit about parking violations and "California Stops"?

I guess you don't have to worry about those much in places like India. That would require 1st world things like STOP signs all over the place.

Here are two differing examples of how tighter gun control laws (regarding who gets them and why) can lead to safer societies.

I don't see what they are supposed to "prove". I think it's interesting they didn't cover Japan's suicide rate, which is 7th in the world without firearms readily available to facilitate, nearly double the US rate. As far as crime goes Japan is pretty much the safest country in the world (unless you're a young woman near a US base). That is due to the culture (the same culture that encourages suicide)and population homogeneity. Not any particular law.

 

[Summerian]

The NRA needs to be shut down. Freaks and lies.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-of-civilian-casualties
Some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year

The real WMD:s!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/un-arms-trade-treaty-nra_n_1711578.html
Both ignore the legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws. The Associated Press fact-checked claims by the NRA and Bolton on Friday and concluded their assertions were false.

And here's what the gun nuts think:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx
For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to warn American gun owners about the United Nations’ efforts to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners by putting in place international controls on small arms.

sick

 

[UltimateApathy]

Ah, an appeal to authority now? Another logical fallacy. Studies are conducted all the time, and often flawed (read any peer review of a study and small sample size is usually a strike). Maybe these weren't, but important data was withheld in the article.

It doesn't matter what the map showed, that's not what you cited. The figures you posted aren't crime rates, and you called them crime rates.

And if you knew anything about India, you wouldn't ask such an absurd question. Over 1 billion people in what is still a developing country. In most places in the country there's nowhere to report a crime if you tried. An article on the law enforcement situation in India:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/article5.htm

You also have to remember you are citing all law violations (crime) which includes crime against the state. Who gives a shit about parking violations and "California Stops"?

I guess you don't have to worry about those much in places like India. That would require 1st world things like STOP signs all over the place.



I don't see what they are supposed to "prove". I think it's interesting they didn't cover Japan's suicide rate, which is 7th in the world without firearms readily available to facilitate, nearly double the US rate. As far as crime goes Japan is pretty much the safest country in the world (unless you're a young woman near a US base). That is due to the culture (the same culture that encourages suicide)and population homogeneity. Not any particular law.

Oh hark at him, the kid who was earlier whining about how I wasn't providing facts and statistics now suddenly changes his tune and is now saying that all studies are flawed and that "vital data was witheld" That's what happens when you're brainwashed, all information contrary to your programming gets dismissed off-hand because your illogical mind is unable to compute it.

If you wanna play word games, I was referring to the article as a whole which shows that the U.S.A. has both the highest crime rate in the world and the highest number of crimes too. Even if you take a very conservative number like 10% of all American crimes being unreported and a very liberal number such as 90% of all Indian crimes being unreported, The USA would still outstrip Indian by over 2 million crimes, which is even more significant considering that India has more than 3 times as many people. Oh, and it's amazing that all those other first world countries lag so INCREDIBLY far behind the USA in terms of both crime rate and number of overall crimes even though they DO have "1st world things like STOP signs all over the place". What makes the difference? Obviously, like I've pointed out numerous times here, it's the fact that having more guns in a society (the US is overflowing with them) not only enables criminals to get hold of them easier, but to commit more crime more boldly and brazenly.

Conversely, the lack of gun availabillity in a place like Japan forces disempowered criminals to move their activities into more underground activities like phone scams but also generally discourages people from becoming criminals in the first place (enter the information I showed earlier about the "power effect" that guns have on people). Culture does play some role in it but don't forget that culture is also regulated by law, and if there are tight laws regarding who can get guns and why, it's simply impossible for there to be a rampant and excessive gun culture anywhere like there is the USA now. And innocent people are constantly paying the price in blood - nothing beats walking out your front door knowing you have basically zero chance of getting a gun shoved in your face.

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-of-civilian-casualties

Small Arms—they cause 90% of civilian casualties

Author and Page information
by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Saturday, January 21, 2006
•This page: http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-of-civilian-casualties.
•To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version:•http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/78


The growing availability of small arms has been a major factor in the increase in the number of conflicts, and in hindering smoother rebuilding and development after a conflict has ended. It is estimated, for example, that:
•There are around half a billion military small arms around the world;
•Some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year;
•They are the major cause of civilian casualties in modern conflicts.

This section attempts to look at some of the issues surrounding small arms.


This web page has the following sub-sections:
What are Small Arms?
Civilians Affected Most by Small ArmsSmall Arms are an Ever-Present Problem
Small Arms Linger Long After Conflicts are Over and Hinders Development and Rebuilding
Small Arms are Proliferated Through Both Legal and Illegal Trade
Small Arms Cause Mass Destruction

People and Governments are Trying to Address the IssuesUN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms, July 2001
United Nations Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms and the Programme of Action, 7-11 July 2003

More Information


What are Small Arms?


© Panos Pictures

Small arms include weapons such as
•hand guns
•pistols
•sub-machine guns
•mortars
•landmines
•grenades
•light missiles.

There are many more which are often not regarded “officially” as small weapons, as described by Philippe Riviere, in Small Arms Cover-up; The problem of proliferation, Le Monde diplomatique, January 2001

Back to top
.

Civilians Affected Most by Small Arms

Consider, for example, the following:
•Modern conflicts claim an estimated half a million people each year. 300,000 of these are from conflicts, and 200,000 are from homicides and suicides.
•Over 80 percent of all these casualties have been civilian
•90 percent of civilian casualties are caused by small arms. This is far higher than the casualty count from conventional weapons of war like tanks, bomber jets or warships.
•Estimates of the black market trade in small arms range from US$2-10 billion a year.
•Every minute, someone is killed by a gun
•At least 1,134 companies in 98 countries worldwide are involved in some aspect of the production of small arms and/or ammunition.
•Civilians purchase more than 80% of all the firearms that are currently manufactured worldwide each year.
•There are at least 639 million firearms in the world today, of which 59% are legally held by civilians.


Small Arms are an Ever-Present Problem

Some of the factors include that small arms are often
•Long-life;
•Low maintenance;
•Relatively cheap and easily available;
•Highly portable and so easily concealable.

The above therefore makes it easy for things like:
•Illicit trafficking;
•Operation by young children. (There are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers in the world.)

Professor Robert Neild of Cambridge University is quite blunt about it, too:



It has been estimated that there are now about 500 million small arms and light weapons in circulation in the world, one for every twelve people. Gone long ago is the time when we Europeans could subdue other continents because we had firearms and the local peoples had not. In 1999 it was reported that an AK-47 assault rifle could be bought in Uganda for the price of a chicken.

— Robert Neild, Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution, (London: Anthem Press, 2002), p. 131
.

Small Arms Linger Long After Conflicts are Over and Hinders Development and Rebuilding

As the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs describes, Small arms and light weapons destabilise regions. This is because they
•Spark, fuel and prolong conflicts;
•Obstruct relief programmes;
•Undermine peace initiatives;
•Exacerbate human rights abuses;
•Hamper development; and
•Foster a “culture of violence.”

The Control Arms Campaign also notes that



… illicit drugs production thrives on territory outside the control of recognised governments, and 95 per cent of the world’s production of hard drugs takes place in contexts of armed conflict. Valuable natural resources are illegally exploited by armed groups and their state sponsors, ruining millions of lives and impeding local development, as has occurred in DRC. International trade suffers and illicit markets thrive, to the detriment of national economies.

— Towards an Arms Trade Treaty; Next steps for the UN Programme of Action, Control Arms, July 2005, p.8

However, as the UN also adds, “unlike nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, there are no international treaties or other legal instruments for dealing with these weapons, which States and also individual legal owners rely on for their defense needs.”

During the cold war, many nations were flooded with small arms by powerful nations such as the USA and the former Soviet Union and their major allies. Even though the cold war has ended, the small arms still remain and help fuel political and ethnic differences into conflict.
.

Small Arms are Proliferated Through Both Legal and Illegal Trade

For example, an extensive report from Oxfam in 1998 revealed that UK involvement in the small arms trade is much higher than previously acknowledged. Between 1995 and 1997, UK sold small arms to over 100 countries.

“The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA—together account for 88 per cent of the world’s conventional arms exports; and these exports contribute regularly to gross abuses of human rights.” as a report from the control arms campaign, Shattered Lives, mentions.

As the report notes further:



The lack of arms controls allows some to profit from the misery of others.
•While international attention is focused on the need to control weapons of mass destruction, the trade in conventional weapons continues to operate in a legal and moral vacuum.
•More and more countries are starting to produce small arms, many with little ability or will to regulate their use.
•Permanent UN Security Council members—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China—dominate the world trade in arms.
•Most national arms controls are riddled with loopholes or barely enforced.
•Key weaknesses are lax controls on the brokering, licensed production, and “end use” of arms.
•Arms get into the wrong hands through weak controls on firearm ownership, weapons management, and misuse by authorised users of weapons.

— The Arms Bazaar, Shattered Lives, Chapter 4, p. 54, Control Arms Campaign, October 2003

This presents a huge obstacle to development in some of these countries. Furthermore, Control Arms, in another paper in 2005 noted that many countries are invovled in this trade.



Measuring SALW [Small Arms and Light Weapons] transfers by financial value [alone] ignores the potentially huge impact of relatively small-value transfers. Assault rifles cost only a few hundred dollars each—but only a few hundred such rifles can lead to major instability, with catastrophic effects for civilian populations.

The international arms trade is not based solely in the “North.” At least 92 countries have the capacity to produce small arms or ammunition, and around half of these are developing countries. Some of this is production licensed from manufacturers in rich industrialised countries…

Countries which are not renowned for the manufacture of weapons often play an important role in the transit and transfer of arms. For example, Viet Nam has reportedly transferred weapons to Myanmar; Lebanon, Liberia, Burkina Faso, and Niger have transferred weapons to Sierra Leone; Namibia to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Angola; Burkina Faso to Benin.

…Thus arms transfers involve all countries, whether they suffer the effects of arms or transfer weapons—not only newly manufactured arms, but re-exported, second-hand, surplus, or collected weapons, and weapons in transit.

— Towards an Arms Trade Treaty; Next steps for the UN Programme of Action, Control Arms, July 2005, p.8

A documentary back in 1998, from the Center for Defense Information, describes the problems of small arms as epidemic.
.

Small Arms Cause Mass Destruction

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) describes that, in effect, small arms are weapons of mass destruction. Summarizing and quoting IANSA:
•Small arms are a Big Problem
•Small arms are Big Business
•Small arms lead to Big Damage»
•Small arms present a Global Challenge
.
People and Governments are Trying to Address the Issues

A documentary from the Center for Defense Information in 1998 suggested that one step towards peace and stability in some regions can be taken by stopping the flow of small arms.

There have been a number of examples of governments and people trying to address the issues. For a small example:

There had been an increase in pressure to discuss disarmament issues and the United Nations was trying to seek a moratorium on small arms trade. The G8 (the world’s major economies plus Russia—also the world’s major arms suppliers) met in Birmingham, UK, 15–17 May, 1998, as part of their annual meetings. Small arms was a major topic of discussion.

In Oslo, Norway, July 1998, there was a meeting where representatives from a number of countries were present to tackle and control the spread of small arms. Although some major producers of small arms were not in attendance, this was still seen as a positive step forward.

South Africa started to take a positive step forward by attempting to tackle the problem that it has created in the past of availability of small arms in Africa and other parts of the world. Yet, as the section below on the UN conference on the illicit arms trade shows, they were against certain moves to tackle exporting of arms to troubled areas.

For the first time in the United Nation’s history, the issue of small arms was finally a topic of conversation at a UN Security Council meeting in 1999, where Kofi Annan also noted the efforts of NGOs in this. NGOs are often doing the hard work and are in the front line. When it comes to small arms, they have been working diligently to fight the effects of small arms. This is not an easy undertaking given the amount of small arms that are traded legally and illegally.

Also in 1999, the UN General Assembly voted to hold a “Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” which was to occur two years after this conference:


UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms, July 2001



Since the beginning of the conference on 9 July [2001], an estimated 25,000 people worldwide will have been killed by small arms.

— UN Conference on Small Arms on the brink of failure, Amnesty International, July 20, 2001

A UN conference was set up from 9th to 20th July, 2001, to try and address issues regarding the proliferation of small arms in conflict zones. Amongst the numerous issues at hand, some major gun-producing countries such as the United States, China, Russia, India, and others were against effective universal criteria against arms export. In fact, it is interesting to note the United Statess’ stance on this, as reported by the radio show, Democracy Now!:



John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, bluntly told the delegates 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.” He also said the United States, the largest supplier of arms worldwide, would not support moves to outlaw any arming of rebel groups, nor would it help fund a campaign by human rights groups to raise awareness of the trade. He also said the U.S. would not support a ban on private ownership of military weapons, including assault rifles and grenade launchers.

— Amy Goodman, A Ban on Private Ownership of Military Weapons Including Assault Rifles and Grenade Launchers? Bush Administration Just Says No, Democracy Now!, July 11, 2001. (An interview with various activists and campaigners around the world on the UN Conference on small arms.)

This is a remarkable position, as one must note how much controversy and concern was raised in the U.S. when there were revelations about Chinese influences in previous elections. That led to such vehement statements by U.S. politicians. Yet, the above statement says that while others should not be involved in such political interference, it is ok for the U.S. to do this (and, historically, more) to others.

As the Guardian in Britain reported, the United Kingdom, a close ally of the U.S., offered £19.5m to UN efforts to curb the supply of small arms, and yet, the “US is opposed to even a commitment to negotiations on a binding legal agreement.” (emphasis added). A partial reason for this, as explained in the Guardian article, is due to the influential gun lobby in the U.S.

On a slightly lighter note, there was the following response to a comment from someone against the UN conference:



[Amy Goodman]: Phylis Schlafly founded the Eagle Forum, a conservative force in this country [the United States] … and she says about the UN conference, that “the purpose of conference is to demonize the private ownership of guns and get government to confiscate all privately owned guns”. She says, “don’t be misled by the term of ‘illicit trade’. UN documents make it clear that since most illegal guns start out as legal purchases, illicit trade must be stopped by clamping down on legal gun owners.” And adds, “don’t think this UN conference is just a talk fest. It’s scheduled to produce a legally binding treaty to require governments to mark, number, register, record, license, confiscate and destroy all guns except those in the hands of the military and the police.” What’s your response to that?

[Cesar Villaneuva]: I hope that, that will be true.

— Amy Goodman, A Ban on Private Ownership of Military Weapons Including Assault Rifles and Grenade Launchers? Bush Administration Just Says No, Democracy Now!, July 11, 2001. (An interview with various activists and campaigners around the world on the UN Conference on small arms.)

As with the John Bolton comment, the above confuses the issue of of domestic gun control with the trade and transfer of small arms and light weapons across international borders, which is what the UN conference was about.

As with numerous other international issues, this issue has been putting the U.S. at odds with many of its other allies, such as various European nations.

As the session was nearing a close, Human Rights Watch was raising concerns that this conference would “[fail] to produce a serious plan of action.” They further pointed out that, “Many delegates have tried to single out shadowy gunrunners as the chief culprits, while neglecting the governmental role in supplying the weapons used to commit atrocities.”

Amnesty International also pointed out that when some countries tried to get committments that small arms wouldn’t be sold where there was a high risk of human rights violations, or fueling tensions etc, the “USA, China, many ASEAN countries, the Arab Group and South Africa, were amongst those governments that blocked moves to secure such commitments.”

As the conference ended, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) described the result as a “squandered” opportunity as the final agreement was watered down so much. The Washington D.C.-based Center for Defence Information also described how the “United States repeatedly used its political capital to weaken the Programme of Action”:



The Conference, held July 9-20, 2001, began on a rather sour tone with the statement of U.S. Under Secretary of State John Bolton, who expressed the U.S. position on the issue of small arms and the Conference in no uncertain terms. Bolton stressed that the Conference should address only the illicit transfer of military style weapons, excluding firearms and non-military rifles (the weapons responsible for terrible carnage and destruction around the world every year).

Bolton bluntly stated the position of the United States in front of the ministerial-level portion of the meeting, describing the U.S. “redlines,” items unacceptable for inclusion in the Conference plan. Bolton stated that the United States could not support a final Conference document that included:
•restrictions on the legal trade and manufacture of small arms and light weapons;
•promotion of international advocacy by NGOs and international organizations;
•restrictions on the sale of small arms and light weapons to entities other than governments;
•a mandatory review conference; and
•a commitment to begin discussions on legally binding agreements.

— Rachel Stohl, UN Conference on Small Arms Concludes With Consensus, Weekly Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, Volume 5, Issue #29, July 26, 2001

The final Programme of Action was created, but weakened:



The final debate centered on the U.S. refusal to allow any mention of restrictions on sales to non-state actors, with several African states taking the opposite position. In the end, the Africans relented and all paragraphs related to non-state actors and civilian possession were stricken from the action plan.

The United States repeatedly used its political capital to weaken the Programme of Action and block progress in the debate. While the United States had clearly defined the items that would receive no U.S. support, the United States did not publicly push U.S. best practices on export criteria or on export controls. In addition, the United States did not push for an international agreement on brokering (or the beginning of discussions of such an agreement).

… Although many compromises could not be reached, the Conference document did succeed in establishing a comprehensive approach, and included recognition of the grave humanitarian consequences caused by the proliferation of small arms. In addition, states now have a document on which they can base their future work on small arms. The Conference also agreed on a follow-up conference no later than 2006 with the precise date to be determined by the General Assembly at its 58th session, and biennial conferences to gauge progress on the implementation of the Programme of Action.

— Rachel Stohl, UN Conference on Small Arms Concludes With Consensus, Weekly Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, Volume 5, Issue #29, July 26, 2001

As IANSA summarized, the programme of action committs governments to:
•Make illicit gun production/possession a criminal offence
•Establish a national coordination agency on small arms
•Identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons
•Keep track of officially-held guns
•Issue end-user certificates for exports/transit
•Notify the original supplier nation of re-export
•Disarmament, Demobilisation & Re-integration (DDR) of ex-combatants, including collection and destruction of their weapons
•Support regional agreements and encourage moratoria
•Mark guns at point of manufacture for identification and tracing
•Maintain records of gun manufacture
•Engage in more information exchange
•Ensure better enforcement of arms embargoes
•Include civil society organisations in efforts to prevent small arms proliferation

However, as IANSA adds, the programme “provides no international mechanism for monitoring compliance, and the UN’s role has been limited to compiling information submitted by states on a voluntary basis.”



I must … express my disappointment over the Conference’s inability to agree, due to the concerns of one State, on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups. The states of the region most afflicted by this global crisis, Africa, had agreed only with the greatest of reluctance to the deletion of proposed language addressing these vital issues… They did so strictly in the interests of reaching a compromise that would permit the world community as a whole to proceed together with some first steps at the global level to alleviate this common threat.

— Ambassador Reyes of Columbia, Conference President at the conclusion of the 2001 conference, quoted from UN Meeting on Small Arms July 7-11: A battle between rich and poor?, ID21, July 3, 2003

(The official UN web site for this conference also contains the full text of the Programme is available on the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs.)

A follow-up biennial conference to guage the progress of the programme was held in July 2003.
.

United Nations Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms and the Programme of Action, 7-11 July 2003

This follow-up meeting was to consider the national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action agreed at the 2001 UN Conference and for governments to report their progress and lessons learned in the first two years of implementing it.

Leading up to the meeting, IANSA noted how many states had progressed poorly so far on this issue, under their obligations to the Programme of Action.

Human Rights Watch detailed misuse of small arms by many governments and groups around the world.

Robert Muggah, senior researcher at the Small Arms Survey—the principle international source of public information on all aspects of small arms based in Geneva—detailed that the issue also involves a difference between the rich and poor. The NGO, ID21, summarized Muggah’s report noting that:
•People living in poor countries in Africa and the Americas are more than twice as likely to die a violent death as those living in rich European countries.
•Many of these deaths are due to the misuse of small arms, the ownership of which has spread throughout poor communities as a result of war and the insecurities of poverty.
•The spread of small arms is both an effect and a cause of underdevelopment and poverty. •Small arms misuse means that instead of making investments in improving their well-being and economic development, the already poor are burdened with the cost of nursing the injured and paying for informal forms of security such as vigilantism and para-militaries.
•Yet much of the initiative to reduce and control small arms has been left to the poor communities themselves, with little help from international governments or agencies.

•One of the causes behind the inaction of some of the world’s wealthiest states is domestic politics and economic self-interest. •On the political front, not all governments in a position to donate funds towards small arms control recognise civilian ownership of arms as a problem.
•In terms of economic self-interest, a number of governments are also reluctant to be involved in initiatives which seek to reduce armed violence by restraining local markets in small arms. The value of the legal global trade in small arms is estimated at 4 billion US dollars per year. The estimated value of the illegal global trade in small arms is an additional 1 billion US dollars. Yet the UN’s current Programme of Action on arms control focuses only on illegal trade in small arms, despite the fact that most illegally sold arms initially come from legal sources.


IANSA summarized the outcome of the meeting as having some critical positives, and some negatives:



The UN Biennial Meeting of States on small arms produced a number of significant outcomes, including:
•The UN Group of Experts on Marking and Tracing released a report indicating that it is feasible to have an instrument on weapons tracing, and a recommendation for such an implementation will be submitted to the General Assembly. It is clear that we need a legally binding instrument on tracing, which includes marking, record keeping and international cooperation. IANSA will support this measure and push for its adoption.
•…[An] EU statement on brokering, which calls for a registry of arms brokers, exchange of information between states and adequate sanctions to ensure effective enforcement of brokering controls.
•A number of UN agencies, including UNDP, WHO, UNIFEM and UNIDIR, have made strong statements about the human costs of small arms proliferation, and clearly recognize that this process must be focussed on reducing the damage and destruction on individuals caused by small arms.
•…While less than half of all governments—about 80—submitted reports to the conference, this is more than have previously ever done so.

Despite these achievements, a number of challenges remain:
•Member states are still far away from achieving global legal standards, which would help keep small arms away from human rights abusers. This is particularly important as delegates and civil society from Africa, the Middle East and Central America, among other regions, are facing crises of armed conflict.
•We need greater recognition that domestic laws and international policies are interdependent, and that each country’s national laws affect the small arms proliferation problems of its neighbours and even countries in other regions.
•We need greater recognition that the legal and the illegal markets for small arms are inter-related, that many illicit transfers start out as legal ones, and that small arms are responsible for deaths and destruction whether they are technically held illegally or not.
•The minimal requirement on governments to report to the UN on their small arms activities and efforts is woefully low and must be raised.

— Small Arms now Firmly on Global Policy Agendas, Say NGOs, International Action Network on Small Arms, July 11, 2003

You can also find out more about this meeting from the official United Nations web site for this conference.
.
Various efforts have resulted in codes of conducts and even a call for an Arms Trade Treaty. These are discussed in more depth in the next section on this site.

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/un-arms-trade-treaty-nra_n_1711578.html

WASHINGTON -- One week after the Aurora, Colo., mass murder brought gun-control back to the forefront of political discourse, the Obama administration found itself faced with its first test on the issue -- and blinked.

An arms control treaty to regulate the $60 billion global business of illicit small arms trading that had worked its way through United Nations negotiating channels for several years came up at the final day of a U.N. global conference in New York on Friday. The U.S. joined Russia in objecting to a final version, with some diplomats and human rights advocates blaming the U.S. for the defeat.

As the Colorado slaughter put guns back on the agenda this week, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and 50 fellow senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, saying that they would vote against ratifying the treaty if it "restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners."

Moran, in a press release, quoted a National Rifle Association leader, who said members would "never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations." Treaty opponent John Bolton, ex-President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun-control advocates "hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home."

Both ignore the legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws. The Associated Press fact-checked claims by the NRA and Bolton on Friday and concluded their assertions were false.

The NRA has been "spreading lies" about the treaty, said Amnesty International spokeswoman Suzanne Trimel in an interview. "Basically, what they're saying is that the arms trade treaty will have some impact on domestic, Second Amendment gun rights. And that is just false, completely false," she said.

Human rights activists have described the treaty as a monumental step toward preventing the illicit flow of weapons to conflict-torn regions. It "creates a global background check to prevent countries and arms exporters from selling guns and military hardware to ... human rights abusers," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International, in a statement Friday. "It has been in the works for more than a decade -- the Obama administration should not make itself the obstacle just as it reaches the finish line," she added.




The treaty seemed to have a good shot in 2009, when the Obama administration broke from the Bush administration's opposition and showed support.

A version of the pact presented to U.S. negotiators late Thursday appeared to satisfy their concerns, according to Amnesty International.

But early Friday, according to Amnesty, Thomas Countryman, the deputy secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, told the negotiators that the U.S. needed more time to review the treaty. Russia, Indonesia and India voiced similar concerns.

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

Reports late on Friday indicated that the treaty was unlikely to move for at least several months. While Friday was a setback for an agreement, there is still a possibility that a draft treaty could be brought before the U.N. General Assembly and passed with two-thirds majority vote in the 193-nation body.

 

[Dak]

Oh hark at him, the kid who was earlier whining about how I wasn't providing facts and statistics now suddenly changes his tune and is now saying that all studies are flawed and that "vital data was witheld" That's what happens when you're brainwashed, all information contrary to your programming gets dismissed off-hand because your illogical mind is unable to compute it.

If you wanna play word games, I was referring to the article as a whole which shows that the U.S.A. has both the highest crime rate in the world and the highest number of crimes too. Even if you take a very conservative number like 10% of all American crimes being unreported and a very liberal number such as 90% of all Indian crimes being unreported, The USA would still outstrip Indian by over 2 million crimes, which is even more significant considering that India has more than 3 times as many people. Oh, and it's amazing that all those other first world countries lag so INCREDIBLY far behind the USA in terms of both crime rate and number of overall crimes even though they DO have "1st world things like STOP signs all over the place". What makes the difference? Obviously, like I've pointed out numerous times here, it's the fact that having more guns in a society (the US is overflowing with them) not only enables criminals to get hold of them easier, but to commit more crime more boldly and brazenly.

Conversely, the lack of gun availabillity in a place like Japan forces disempowered criminals to move their activities into more underground activities like phone scams but also generally discourages people from becoming criminals in the first place (enter the information I showed earlier about the "power effect" that guns have on people). Culture does play some role in it but don't forget that culture is also regulated by law, and if there are tight laws regarding who can get guns and why, it's simply impossible for there to be a rampant and excessive gun culture anywhere like there is the USA now. And innocent people are constantly paying the price in blood - nothing beats walking out your front door knowing you have basically zero chance of getting a gun shoved in your face.

So you are suggesting a link between running stop signs and gun availability? Do you listen to yourself?

Again, crime totals are not as important the crime rate, and in relation to guns, the violent crime rate, a statistic the US does relatively well in. Like I said, who cares about parking tickets?

I also did not say "all studies are flawed". I said that the article withheld critical information about the study and that the study had a small sample size. Nice strawman. Your inability to think logically is seriously hampering you.

Ironic you should cite a study that cites wars, not domestic crime, as a reason to ban domestically held guns. Like I said, lets disarm the military first and then work from there. Also, which is it? Am I a "kid" or a retired military grunt (I'm actually neither of these but I want you to at least make up your mind about which incorrect thing you think I am).

Your inability to logically apply data to back up an argument and inability to abstain from logical fallacies does much to discredit your self-proclaimed logical abilities.

 

[UltimateApathy]

So you are suggesting a link between running stop signs and gun availability? Do you listen to yourself?

Again, crime totals are not as important the crime rate, and in relation to guns, the violent crime rate, a statistic the US does relatively well in. Like I said, who cares about parking tickets?

I also did not say "all studies are flawed". I said that the article withheld critical information about the study and that the study had a small sample size. Nice strawman. Your inability to think logically is seriously hampering you.

Ironic you should cite a study that cites wars, not domestic crime, as a reason to ban domestically held guns. Like I said, lets disarm the military first and then work from there. Also, which is it? Am I a "kid" or a retired military grunt (I'm actually neither of these but I want you to at least make up your mind about which incorrect thing you think I am).

Your inability to logically apply data to back up an argument and inability to abstain from logical fallacies does much to discredit your self-proclaimed logical abilities.

To be honest, I doubt whether traffic-related offences were even included in that list because the numbers would be FAR higher if they were - there are probably over 11 million parking tickets alone issued in the US every year. So you might as well stop your tiny mind from denying all the facts and figures relative to the relationship between strict gun legislature/control and the degree of crime in a society.

Also, you say the U.S. does relatively well in violent crime rate statistics but you offer none up to validate your argument. And even if you were to find such statistics (although we do know via previous posts that the NRA does it best to stifle or falsify gun violence statistics), let's just consider the facts so far: (a) we've already seen via previous posts that the amount of gun-related crime has a very strong link to the availability of guns amongst civillians (b) via previous posts we've also seen that a great proportion of violent crime in U.S. does occur with guns involved (c) then if we follow this through logically (which I know you have trouble with), it's obviously clear that if countries with higher violent crime rates were as awash with guns as the U.S., the violent crimes committed there would be most likely involve guns and thus be both more numerous and more heinous. Also, how would you expect the over-all violent crime rate in a rotting third-world country to compare to a civillized first world country like the USA anyway? Your argument is so full of holes that I guess you must have been using it for target practice:

You reveal your supreme ignorance with regard to comprehension and general brainwashed-ness when you refer to an entire U.N. report about the deterimental effect of small arms on all levels to human society as a whole as being "based on war". The reports covers all the detrimental effects of gun ownership from crime-based aspects to their use by governments and other armed groups in third world countries. How do you think civil wars get started in the first place? Answer: an excess of guns in civillian society. I know you're going to whine about "justified resistance" here but let me ask you this: what percentage of civil wars in third world countries do you actually think are "justified"? Most of the time it's just obvious greed and hunger for power, replacing one dictatorship with another - read your history books. And none of it would happen without an excess of guns in society.

The statistics are all there regarding how severe and serious a blight guns are to human society in general, but I guess you didn't notice them because you clearly didn't read or understand any of those three reports because your puppet-like mental state won't allow you to, or else you would have noticed: The U.N. tried to introduced a bill to try halt this endless slaughter and carnage by curtailing to a degree the manufacture and ownership of small arms on a global, but the NRA was instrumental in blocking the most important and effective parts of the bill. That's right, some redneck association in America is enabling and empowering (among other things) civil wars in third world countries, many involving child soldiers, to give some hillbillies in their fat rich home country the right to say "I gotta haves me a gun to defends meself from criminals and the evil bad U.S. government". It truly is sick, and both the NRA and mindless puppets like you who support them have blood on their hands.

It truly is pathetic how you endlessly whine on about how certain data doesn't fit into your view of the world, but provide very little corroborative evidence yourself: if this were a proper moderated debate you would have lost ages ago - the judges would have laughed you off the stage.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Stories like this are a dime a dozen in the U.S., but gun nuts don't care about anything as much as being able to admire the metallic sheen of their killing machine as they hold it lovingly in their arms.

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-loses-4th-child-gun-violence-050937554.html

Chicago woman loses 4th child to gun violence

CHICAGO (AP) — At least five people were gunned down Saturday in Chicago, including a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings.

Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother Shirley's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a parked car on the city's West Side. A 21-year-old man who was also in the car was wounded, police said.

Shirley Chambers, whose two other sons and daughter were shot in separate attacks more than a decade ago, was left grieving again on Saturday, WLS-TV reported (http://bit.ly/VCSh8i ).

"Right now, I'm totally lost because Ronnie was my only surviving son," Chambers said.

Shirley Chambers' first child, Carlos, was shot and killed by a high school classmate in 1995 after an argument. He was 18. Her daughter Latoya, then 15, and her other son Jerome were shot and killed within months of one another in 2000.

"What did I do wrong? I was there for them. We didn't have everything we wanted but we had what we needed," she asked Saturday.

Chambers said despite this latest tragic chapter in her life, she's not bitter or angry.

"They took my only child. I have nobody right now. That's my only baby," she said.

A few hours after Ronnie Chambers was killed, a gunman opened fire on three men near a South Side eatery, killing two of them and wounding the third, police said.

On Saturday afternoon, detectives were called to the scene of another shooting in which a man in his 30s and a teenager were shot to death. There had been no arrests.

Chicago's homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008. As grim as it is, Chicago's homicide rate was almost double in the early 1990s — averaging around 900 — before violent crime began dropping in cities across America.

Last year's increase, though, stood in sharp contrast to New York, where homicides fell 21 percent from 2011, as of early December.

 

[Dak]

Also, you say the U.S. does relatively well in violent crime rate statistics but you offer none up to validate your argument.

Have you uh, not read all the previous posts? I've already cited the violent crime statistics for both the entire world and most of the 1st world. I shouldn't have to keep citing and repeating the same statistics over and over because you aren't paying attention.

I'll repost this here since you missed it the first time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

And even if you were to find such statistics (although we do know via previous posts that the NRA does it best to stifle or falsify gun violence statistics), let's just consider the facts so far: (a) we've already seen via previous posts that the amount of gun-related crime has a very strong link to the availability of guns amongst civillians (b) via previous posts we've also seen that a great proportion of violent crime in U.S. does occur with guns involved (c) then if we follow this through logically (which I know you have trouble with), it's obviously clear that if countries with higher violent crime rates were as awash with guns as the U.S., the violent crimes committed there would be most likely involve guns and thus be both more numerous and more heinous. Also, how would you expect the over-all violent crime rate in a rotting third-world country to compare to a civillized first world country like the USA anyway? Your argument is so full of holes that I guess you must have been using it for target practice:

You use logical fallacies in fully-automatic mode. You are in no position to make negative remarks about other's logical abilities. Gun crime does have a correlation with gun availability. Where has anyone disputed that in this thread? Although a large proportion of violent crime in the US does involve a firearm (almost exclusively pistols btw "handguns", not "Assault weapons"), the majority do not involve a weapon. Again, the US has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the 1st world, while having the highest rate of gun ownership by a long shot.

Correlation is not causation, and I can equally draw a correlation to high rate of gun ownership = lower rates of violent crime. If you only want to consider these factors, and exclude everything else, we can follow this through logically to determine that while gun availability increases the rate of gun crimes in comparison to crimes sans guns, it drives down the overall crime rate, which sounds like a win for gun ownership to me.

You reveal your supreme ignorance with regard to comprehension and general brainwashed-ness when you refer to an entire U.N. report about the deterimental effect of small arms on all levels to human society as a whole as being "based on war". The reports covers all the detrimental effects of gun ownership from crime-based aspects to their use by governments and other armed groups in third world countries. How do you think civil wars get started in the first place? Answer: an excess of guns in civillian society. I know you're going to whine about "justified resistance" here but let me ask you this: what percentage of civil wars in third world countries do you actually think are "justified"? Most of the time it's just obvious greed and hunger for power, replacing one dictatorship with another - read your history books. And none of it would happen without an excess of guns in society.

Did you read the report? I did.

Modern conflicts claim an estimated half a million people each year. 300,000 of these are from conflicts, and 200,000 are from homicides and suicides.
Over 80 percent of all these casualties have been civilian

So 3/5 are from war. Over half. Next is a lump statistic for homicide and suicide. Suicide happens in many forms, and can't be blamed on the method (neither can murder, but I digress). Given the ratio for suicide vs homicide in the US (roughly 70% to 30%), we could just blanket that % onto these numbers for an unscinetific estimate of 60,000 per year killed by small arms via homicide, annually. We have nearly that many die annually just in the US from vehicle accidents. Not exactly the "pandemic" or whatever you want to claim.

To say wars count because they aren't "justified" is absurd. Who gets to determine what justifies a war? I don't disagree it's just two different groups fighting for power. So what? All the people involved think it's justified, even if for different reasons. Syria is an example: The FSA thinks that it is justified in tearing down the Baathists and Assad think's he is justified in suppressing the revolt. Regardless, war has existed since the beginning of recorded history, back in the days of rocks for weapons, and certainly was no less bloody.

The statistics are all there regarding how severe and serious a blight guns are to human society in general, but I guess you didn't notice them because you clearly didn't read or understand any of those three reports because your puppet-like mental state won't allow you to, or else you would have noticed: The U.N. tried to introduced a bill to try halt this endless slaughter and carnage by curtailing to a degree the manufacture and ownership of small arms on a global, but the NRA was instrumental in blocking the most important and effective parts of the bill. That's right, some redneck association in America is enabling and empowering (among other things) civil wars in third world countries, many involving child soldiers, to give some hillbillies in their fat rich home country the right to say "I gotta haves me a gun to defends meself from criminals and the evil bad U.S. government". It truly is sick, and both the NRA and mindless puppets like you who support them have blood on their hands.

It truly is pathetic how you endlessly whine on about how certain data doesn't fit into your view of the world, but provide very little corroborative evidence yourself: if this were a proper moderated debate you would have lost ages ago - the judges would have laughed you off the stage.

You know what you remind me of? You probably aren't old enough to remember this (I'm not either tbh), but there was an identical fear campaign about the blight of heavy metal music on society back in the 80s/early 90s. Heavy metal was "corrupting the youth" and causing violence etc. It's not metal's fault, and it's not gun's fault.

If this were a proper debate you would receive a negative mark for every time you called your opponent "brainwashed", "mindless", "stupid", etc. You would have received negative marks for appealing to "common sense" and other such "self evident!" statements.

And you referenced Chicago as an example of the problem of gun availability. You know, the city and state with some of the strictest restrictions on guns in the country? May as well cite North Korea as an example of a failure of capitalism.

Anyway, you still haven't acknowledged that crime figures have been falling in the US for years even with the country being awash in guns. Of course you ignore it, it doesn't fit into the narrative you want to advance: That guns act on their own, like some sort of pathogen.

 

[UltimateApathy]

"In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007."


Well, there goes your theory about Britain being such an evil and dangerous country based on those stats. Like I said earlier "(a) we've already seen via previous posts that the amount of gun-related crime has a very strong link to the availability of guns amongst civillians (b) via previous posts we've also seen that a great proportion of violent crime in U.S. does occur with guns involved (c) then if we follow this through logically (which I know you have trouble with), it's obviously clear that if countries with higher violent crime rates were as awash with guns as the U.S., the violent crimes committed there would be most likely involve guns and thus be both more numerous and more heinous. Also, how would you expect the over-all violent crime rate in a rotting third-world country to compare to a civillized first world country like the USA anyway? Your argument is so full of holes that I guess you must have been using it for target practice." So there are varying degrees of violent assaults, and considering that a large amount of violent crimes in America does occur with a gun involved, we can safely presume that a far more significant number of the violent crimesa that occur there are far more heinous and serious than simple "affrays". Look at the murder rates for example: Britain has 921 murders a year in TOTAL whereas America has over 11000 gun-related murders every year, not even including non-gun-related murders. You'd have to be a very brainwashed or very stupid person to ignore damningly obvious statistics like these, son - murders are far far more serious than simple fist fights.

Furthermore, the article points to the main reason for all the scuffles breaking out being changes in laws relating to the opening hours of pubs:

"Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning. "

Now IMAGINE if all these drunken yobbos getting into random fistfights for no particulasr reason except alcohol were all (or at least a significant number) carrying guns like you rednecks like to do in America? It doesn't even take a great sense of logic to see that many of simple "affrays" would turn into murder or attempted murder when some drunken jackass decides to prove his manhood by pulling out his concealed weapon and shooting whoever is bothering him. Try use your mind and see rational logic for once in your life.

Also, you simply dismiss 3/5 of global gun deaths as being due to war but conveniently ignore the fact that most of those gun deaths are NOT governments fighting governments but rather civil wars in third world countries that occur precisely BECAUSE there are too many guns in civilian society (thanks largely to the US and others making guns so freely available on ther global market) which enables varies armed civilian groups to take up guns against the government. History has shown many times that these wars are often really bloody and protracted and hardly ever result in a stable government being established, with civil war generally re-occurring. Has a mindless puppet like you ever heard of the term "ethics"? I'm sure you could make a very ethically and morally convincing argument that even a gun-less and relatively peaceful society like China where the government controls all forms of media is preferable to the state of constant civil strife that occurs in many of these third world countries awash with guns. Even an oppressive government is better than having no government with a constant state of constant anarchy and war due to excessive gun ownership within civilian society (and if you can't justify war, then you sure as hell can't justify civilians carrying weapons of war within a peaceful "not-at-war" society, which happens to be your particular fetish).

This is EXACTLY why the U.N. wanted to introduce this bill to tackle these kind of recurring gun-based problems within the third world, but the NRA stepped in and was instrumental in blocking the bill because some rednecked buffoons in the backwoods of America wanted to cling to their pretty little guns while child soldiers fight wars with the same freely-available guns in third world countries. Do you really fail to see the sick and twisted sense of immorality here? To brainwashed puppets like you it's just all numbers on a page, the deaths of a few million civilians means nothing to you as long as you can keep your precious little guns. Maybe you would change your tune if someone close to you got gunned down - or maybe you'd just think "It was their fault because they weren't carrying a concealed gun that they would have had time to pull out and fight back with". Your heartless and mindless thinking is disgusting and despicable.

 

[Summerian]

"...there was an identical fear campaign about the blight of heavy metal music on society back in the 80s/early 90s."

And that sums it up. No point in any more talks if this is what the pro gun people think is deductive reasoning.
Don't get it, never will and don't want to.
How many deaths could Tipper Gore point too?
300.000 - 500.000 dead in africa.
USA - 28 000 deaths a year from small arms—accidents, suicides, and homicides. 9,146 homicides a year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Country, Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop, Average firearms per 100 people, Average total all civilian firearms

United States 2.97, 88.8, 270,000,000
Germany 0.19, 30.3, 25,000,000
France 0.06, 31.2, 19,000,000
Sweden 0.41, 31.6, 2,800,000
Denmark 0.27, 12, 650,000
Poland 0.09, 1.3, 510,000
Spain 0.2, 10.4, 4,500,000

SOURCES: UNODC & Small arms survey

Look at Poland and look at Sweden.
Sweden need to get the number of guns down but USA doesn't!?
nutz!
Just nuts!