Activists call for global gun control measures

[FWiedner]

Activists call for global gun control measures

Source: Reuters
 
By Andrew Quinn

JOHANNESBURG, March 7 (Reuters) - Gun control activists said on Monday the world was awash in small arms, fuelling violence, and called for global cooperation and stricter limits on the trade.

"You can't control international arms proliferation, especially small arms proliferation, without international cooperation," said Brian Wood, Amnesty International's arms and security trade research manager. "We want tough action."

A human rights report by a consortium of groups highlighted the impact of guns on the lives of women, saying they were often the "silent victims" of the small arms trade.

The activists noted there were an estimated 650 million guns in circulation around the world -- almost all in the hands of men.

"Given that they are almost never the buyers, owners or users of small arms, (women) suffer disproportionately from armed violence," said Denise Searle of Amnesty International, one of the groups releasing the report.

Gun control campaigners hoped the report would give fresh impetus to moves to impose more regulation on the world trade in small arms, although they noted progress to date has been slow.

A 2001 U.N. action programme on the trade has yielded few results, but campaigners hope a review meeting in 2006 will push improvements such as a world arms trade registry, written arms shipment permits and better policing.

Statistics worldwide indicate young men are the main victims of small arms, whether used in disputes, in conflict zones or in criminal activity including gang violence.

But the report issued ahead of International Women's Day on Tuesday showed women too are paying a price, often in their own homes as a result of domestic violence.

"Where guns are available, more women are likely to be killed," Searle said.

South Africa, famous for high crime rates, sees a woman shot dead by a current or former partner every 18 hours, according to statistics from the state-funded Medical Research Council.

U.S. studies have shown that having a gun in the house increases the risk that someone in the house will be murdered by 41 percent, but boosts the risk for women by 272 percent.

Some countries such as Canada and Australia have managed to bring down the murder rate of women by toughening laws on gun licensing. But the problem is growing in the developing world, where such safeguards are harder to implement. From Africa to Afghanistan, civil strife, insurgencies and cross-border wars have increased the threat of gun violence against women, putting huge quantities of guns into circulation in countries as social norms and legal frameworks collapse.

"Once small arms are brought into a country, they post a continuous risk," said Hiroute Guebre Sellassie, a conflict adviser for Eastern and Central Africa with British-based aid agency Oxfam which also sponsored the report.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L07716206.htm

*Note:  Agreeing to any gun-control agenda such as described in the article would be directly in conflict with the Constitution.  An American executive agreeing to a treaty wherein there was a requirement to implement a gun registration scheme as a part of the contract would be guilty of TREASON.  Our elected representatives should be inundated with mail warning them against buying into such globalist pap.

.

[alsatian]

How would consenting to gun laws like those described in the article -- the text copied into your post -- violate the second amendment?  As I read the text copied into your post, the only gun laws proposed deal with international trade in guns.  I suppose at worst this might constrain my selection of arms to arms manufactured in-country, but I guess I don't necessarily see that as constraining my second amendment right.

I'm not saying I think we ought to enter into any such treaty, but I guess I would want to see the words before I got too excited or before I cried "Wolf!!!"  I don't know anything about the current trade in arms, why would I judge that any new law regarding small arms trade is bad or that it necessarily interferes with my second amendment right?

[FWiedner]

How would consenting to gun laws like those described in the article -- the text copied into your post -- violate the second amendment?  As I read the text copied into your post, the only gun laws proposed deal with international trade in guns.  I suppose at worst this might constrain my selection of arms to arms manufactured in-country, but I guess I don't necessarily see that as constraining my second amendment right.

I'm not saying I think we ought to enter into any such treaty, but I guess I would want to see the words before I got too excited or before I cried "Wolf!!!"  I don't know anything about the current trade in arms, why would I judge that any new law regarding small arms trade is bad or that it necessarily interferes with my second amendment right?

The current fad of legislators and judges straying away from or ignoring American values, heritage, traditions and laws in favor of international standards is just a technique of justifying the penchant for making up laws as they go.

Would the result of such an agreement between an officer of the U.S. government and a foreign or international power not, as you point out, result in restricting in the availability of selected arms to The American People?  To include making selected American manufactured firearms unavailable in foreign countries?

The specific intent of the Second Amendment was to enable The People to maintain arsenals comparable to any standing army that might be established, in order that they might be able to defend themselves.  There are many service weapons and arms components currently in issue, used by our military, that are manufactured in foreign countries.  Regulations restricting civilian access to those materials are flatly unconstitutional, but enforced.  An international agreement or treaty would further restrict or deny access to those materials, and attempt to hide that unconstitutional denial of access behind the color of international law.

The law in this country that speaks to this and all related issues is clear, and written in plain language.

It says, in part, "...shall not be infringed."

I don't think it's much of a stretch to equate regulation, restriction, and denial, whether or not international trade issues are involved, with infringement.

.

[alsatian]

Well, in general I dislike any gun law.  They rarely accomplish the objective -- reduce crime -- and always impede the liberties of law abiding citizens, in whatever country.  We talk so much of freedom in this country, but few people think enough about it.  Being free doesn't mean swallowing the BS that media pushes down your throat.  That isn't being free, that is being a puppet and a pawn in a larger game.

Just imagine what kind of abuses could go on behind the scenes.  We can't keep a lid on major countries selling arms to countries we distrust now.  If France and Russian can circumvent the Iraq embargoes -- reference UN "Oil for Food" scam -- couldn't the small arms treaty be circumvented by cynical jaded bouerocrats in France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, or wherever?  And the private gun owner or the gun manufacturers pay the price.

I don't like it either, but I am more alarmed about other gun issues.  For example, the UN trying to ban private ownership across the board, a la that Australian woman who debated Wayne Lapierre over the last year.