Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Default UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    If the United Nations consulted their own research, they wouldn’t be promoting their global civilian disarmament agenda.
    April 2, 2011 - by Howard Nemerov


    Recently, the United Nations took the next step in negotiating an international arms trade treaty that has the full support of the Obama administration. The goal of this treaty is to impose “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” and ammunition, ostensibly because “too many arms still end up in the wrong hands.”

    This high-sounding rhetoric demands further examination, especially since the UN group behind this meeting is called the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
    Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations has proclaimed that global civilian disarmament will ensure worldwide peace and prosperity. But to comprehend their attitude towards civilian gun ownership, know that the United Nations believes you have no civil right of self-defense:
    Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right.” There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
    In other words, if you kill an attacker, you violate their human rights. For now, the UN will let it pass if you can prove you were protecting your life. But this remains a “basis for exemption from criminal responsibility,” which implies that you owe a debt to society. Also, government can revoke this privilege of self-defense at any time.
    Curiously, the UN never consults their own research when asking: “Does gun ownership make you less safe?”
    In their most extensive effort to date, the Small Arms Survey (SAS) published estimates of civilian firearms inventories for 172 UN member countries (out of a total 192). This organization partners with international civilian disarmament organizations, including the UN, and is decidedly anti-gun:
    The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people.
    Collating the latest homicide data available from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime with SAS data creates a dataset of 145 UN countries. America, with the most guns per capita (GPC), is tied with Argentina for the 50th highest homicide rate. The graph below highlights the lack of correlation between GPC and homicide rates (all rates in incidents per 100,000 population). Spearman’s value is -0.10: As GPC increases, homicide rates decrease, albeit weakly.

    The UN wants us to believe that more guns means more violence. Using homicide as an indicator, UN data derogates this claim.
    Some of the most repressive regimes reported the lowest homicide rates. But since this data comes from law enforcement sources, it doesn’t include state-justified murder. For example, Syrian “security forces” recently killed “at least 20” civilians during one protest, but “Criminal Justice Sources” reported Syria’s homicide rate was significantly lower than America’s.
    In Yemen’s capital of Sana’a, “soldiers and plain-clothed government loyalists” killed “at least 35” and left “hundreds wounded” after opening fire on protesters. The UN reports Yemen has a relatively low homicide rate.
    At the extreme range is China, whose government declares “private citizens are forbidden from owning and selling guns,” and “gun crime is rare.” This policy allegedly protects “the safety of every individual citizen.” The official homicide rate appears to bear this out, but between 1949 and 1987 military and police legally murdered nearly 77 million. Today, China continues its heavy-handed response by imprisoning protesters for “inciting subversion of state power.”
    The table below lists selected countries and how non-governmental organizations rate levels of personal freedom, government corruption, and economic freedom. (A previous report discusses these NGOs, and how the UN plans to destroy our Second Amendment.)
    While there are documented cases of government-condoned murder of U.S. citizens, the problem is not nearly as pervasive as in totalitarian countries. In any case, those reporting homicide data control what’s considered murder.
    * Lower score = more government corruption.
    UN data also derogates the belief that more guns means more suicide. America has the 41st highest suicide rate, out of 89 UN countries. When collated with SAS data, the graph below shows there’s no correlation between gun ownership and suicide. Spearman’s value is an insignificant 0.04. (0.0 means no correlation.)
    Examining the greatly expanded (nearly 3 times the UN countries from previous reports) GPC dataset, a clearer picture of the UN surfaces. The graph below shows that as gun ownership increases, political and civil rights improve. (Spearman’s = -0.34: higher GPC correlates with lower Freedom score.)

    The graph below shows that as gun ownership increases, so does economic freedom. (Spearman’s = 0.48)

    The graph below shows that as gun ownership increases, governments become less corrupt. (Spearman’s = 0.39)
    (Flashback to the SAS mission statement: “The unchecked spread of [small arms] has…contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development…”)

    One need look no further than the UN itself for proof of the gun control/corruption link. Even though he recently warned that the UN must “rein in its ballooning expenditures,” Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has grown his own bureaucracy faster than the rest of the UN.
    Obviously, the UN should focus on improving personal and economic freedom, but the average Corruption Index for all 192 member countries is 3.96. Since the UN represents mostly corrupt, oppressive regimes, promoting liberty isn’t likely to happen.
    Former civilian disarmament supporter and medical researcher Howard Nemerov investigates the civil liberty of self-defense and examines the issue of gun control, resulting in his book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? He appears frequently on NRA News as their “unofficial” analyst and was published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics with David Kopel and Carlisle Moody.


    Source: http://bit.ly/eEDx1i
    "Guns are just tools, the way they're used reflects the society they're apart of, if you don't like guns, blame it on society" ~Chris Kyle

  2. #2

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    Ah yes the U.N. always looking out for the rights of the citizens of their member states (NOT!!!!!)

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Where is my mind..?
    Posts
    13,357

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    Wow, thanks FrankH.

    Nice to see the graphs and data - it proves that which your average 7-year old knows to be true.
    Last edited by JS4; 05-04-2011 at 08:42. Reason: stoopid effing cellphone connectivity issues.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    but then you see, if the slaves can shoot back, the pedophile elitists would not be able to abuse them like they want to. when the people have guns, the government fears them and when the government have all the guns, the unarmed citizens are slowly culled by their governments. i have the proof somewhere, but government are the biggest murderers of their own people and out-killed any world war or global disease. they will confiscate my weapons out of my cold stiff fingers but i will never voluntarily give them up

  5. #5

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    Last Friday, President Trump took the historic step of ordering the “unsigning” of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty during his address to the NRA-ILA’s Leadership Forum. President Trump’s action effectively withdraws the United States from the most comprehensive effort towards international gun control.
    Much of the intervening coverage on the ATT has focused on how the treaty did or did not constrain U.S. arms sales abroad, but many average law-abiding gun owners may be questioning how the treaty could or couldn’t have affected them.
    NRA’s complaints regarding the treaty have always been based on its potential effect on law-abiding American gun owners. Those complaints have focused on the treaty’s requirements for end use verification, its sometimes-unintelligible vagueness, its ability to be amended without the consensus of all parties, and its proponents repeated refusals to clarify that it has no effect on the possession of small arms by civilians in the United States.
    The treaty urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation” for a “minimum of ten years.” Each country is to “take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.
    The vagueness of the treaty and its ease of being “amended” is best exemplified by actions that took place at a conference on the treaty last year. At that conference, proponents of the treaty “welcome[ed]” several living documents into the ATT. While seemingly innocuous on its face, this change incorporated the International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) into the ATT.
    Falsely described as established “international standards” or “international norms” that “provide clear, practical and comprehensive guidance to practitioners and policymakers on fundamental aspects of small arms and light weapons control”, the ISACS are in reality a series of six standards developed by the UN for states to use in implementing their global disarmament agenda. Series 3 – Legislative and Regulatory – and its Module 3.30, “National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons,” is the most alarming of all the ISACS.
    Purporting to set the standards for “National Regulation of Civilian Access to Small Arms and Light Weapons,” Module 3.30 creates a means to almost entirely limit civilian access to small arms under the guise of International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Gender Based Violence. Highlights include, but are not limited to; a ban on civilian possession of “military” style arms – no automatic weapons or magazines with over a 10 round capacity, ballistic recordings, different risk classifications on types of firearms (i.e. calibers over .45 are an intolerable risk to public safety and semi-auto handguns and rifles are high risk), licensing and registration of all firearms, training and storage restrictions, waiting periods, 20-year record retention requirements of sellers, age limits and requiring a demonstrated need to possess a firearm, with self-defense not being one of them.
    While incorporation by reference of the ISACS into the ATT was alarming, it was also not entirely unpredictable. As with every anti-firearm UN initiative, concern must never lie entirely with what is in it now, but with what it will become and how it will be used by a future U.S. administration, especially one seeking international justification for a gun control agenda.
    Perhaps the easiest way to understand the future danger the ATT posed to U.S. gun owners is the complete refusal by proponents of the treaty to limit its application to civilian arms. NRA and other opponents of the treaty repeatedly asked for a carve-out in the treaty, yet those requests were flatly denied. If the treaty’s proponents had no intention of limiting American gun ownership, why resist such a limitation to the text of the treaty?
    Instead, the treaty included language in its preamble that treaty parties be “mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” A careful read will show that the use of arms for individual and collective defense is notably missing from this statement, and the statement creates no limitation and is really only an aspirational provision.
    Please join us in thanking President Trump for protecting our firearms freedoms by removing any obligation of the United States to be bound by the “object and purpose” of the Arms Trade Treaty.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...can-gun-owners



  6. #6
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    If the UN didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  7. #7

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul View Post
    If the UN didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26917419

    The UN is still ashamed over its failure to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said.

    And recently:

    https://www.adomonline.com/ghana-new...leader-upheld/
    The Supreme Court in Rwanda has rejected a challenge to a law which says it is a crime to insult the president.
    The law which was introduced last year means that anyone insulting President Paul Kagame faces between five and seven years in prison.

  8. #8
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    The Vaal Triangle
    Age
    34
    Posts
    3,160

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by MTTSS View Post
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26917419

    The UN is still ashamed over its failure to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said.

    And recently:

    https://www.adomonline.com/ghana-new...leader-upheld/
    The Supreme Court in Rwanda has rejected a challenge to a law which says it is a crime to insult the president.
    The law which was introduced last year means that anyone insulting President Paul Kagame faces between five and seven years in prison.
    This makes me wonder about Rwanda and the genocide, was the machete/panga the main weapons used for the murdering and slaughtering? Shows you how far a large group of radical extremists can get with just pangas agains unarmed groups of people.

  9. #9

    Default Re: UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven001 View Post
    This makes me wonder about Rwanda and the genocide, was the machete/panga the main weapons used for the murdering and slaughtering? Shows you how far a large group of radical extremists can get with just pangas agains unarmed groups of people.
    The attacks started with weaponry used by militaries including grenades of which a large quantity was were imported into the country in the months just before the genocide by the forces (military / police / presidential guard / ex-soldiers and militia connected to the majority) who executed the genocide and their associates.

    This happened despite all the UN sanctions and treaties etc. Some of the memorial sites were left as they were to this day - riddled with large bullet holes.


    Arms and Ammunition
    The message of condemnation of the genocide, sent in a tardy and hesitant way, was counterbalanced throughout these months of horror by another message from international actors indicating acquiescence in the slaughter. A small number of persons, officially and unofficially—in such countries as France, the United Kingdom, Israel, Albania, South Africa, the Seychelles—supplied the weapons needed by the authorities who were executing the killing campaign. (For the case of France, see below.)

    On April 10, in one of its first actions, the newly installed interim government made contact with the Mil-Tec corporation, arms dealers in the United Kingdom, to place an urgent order for U.S.$854,000 worth of arms and ammunition.39 A weeklater, it sent Lt. Col. Cyprien Kayumba on a two month mission to Kinshasha, Nairobi, Paris, Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli in search of arms.40 Bagosora also went to the Seychelles and apparently to Malta and perhaps elsewhere to buy weapons.41 Ndindiliyimana went to Europe in June with the charge to speed lagging deliveries.42 Other emissaries may also have been sent to attempt to purchase firearms.43

    Clearly the interim government placed great importance on ensuring a supply of weapons and ammunition. Clearly also it was ready even to change policy to avoid an interruption in the flow of arms. As official statements down to the level of the commune show, “pacification” was in part a response to the fear that the supply of arms would be disrupted. (See above.) On one level, continued deliveries were important to the legitimacy of the interim government, as an indicator that the international community was prepared to tolerate even if it did not approve of the genocide. On a practical level, the guns and bullets were needed to fight the RPF, a consideration which weighed especially heavily with the military officers in charge of combat. In addition, the firearms were needed in exterminating the Tutsi. Some foreign observers have minimized the importance of firearms in the genocide. Colonel Marchal, for example, stated that “the massacres were done by militias with machetes,” an opinion voiced also by Kofi Annan.44 Certainly most assailants killed Tutsi with machetes, hammers, clubs, and other such weapons. But, as the evidence above shows, soldiers and milita slew thousands of civilians with firearms and grenades. They used these weapons also to terrorize tens ofthousands of others, paralyzing them before assailants who killed them by other means. At massacre sites, bullet shells litter the ground and holes in walls and ceilings testify to the use of the grenades. Witnesses from various regions agree that the attacks began with the use of firearms, including sometimes even heavy weaponry. They also agree that the guards at most important barriers had at least one firearm or several grenades which they used to execute Tutsi or to intimidate them to make it easier to kill them in other ways.

    As is often the case with the profitable arms trade where a multiplicity of parties compete, official or unofficial actors from at least thirteen countries participated in the commercial transactions that kept Rwanda supplied with arms. In addition to the French authorities and private agents (discussed below), government officials in the Seychelles twice shipped arms to Rwanda. Bagosora himself went there to negotiate the delivery of some eighty tons of arms and ammunition at a cost of some U.S.$330,000. The government of Zaire provided an essential link in the supply line by permitting its airports at Kinshasha and Goma to be used for the delivery of arms that were then shipped on to Rwanda.45

    Arms dealers in Israel, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Albania had no scruples about selling weapons to authorities who were executing a genocide. Lieutenant Colonel Kayumba arranged for the delivery of five different shipments from the Mil-Tec Corporation, operated by two Kenyans, Anup Vidyarthi and Rakeesh Gupta, and under the directorship of two British subjects, John and Trevor Donnelly. Rwandan records show that Mil-Tec shipped U.S.$5.5 million worth of ammunition and grenades on April 18, April 25, May 5, May 9, and May 20. They obtained the first two shipments in Israel and the later ones from Albania. Shipping documents show that Mil-Tec used an aircraft registered in Nigeria but leased from a company in the Bahamas to make its deliveries.46 In another case, a South African plane reportedly delivered arms to Butare airport at the end of May, as mentioned above.

    According to correspondence between Mil-Tec and the National Westminster Bank in the U.K., Mil-Tec deposited payments for arms sales to Rwanda in anaccount there. A U.N. commission investigating the traffic in weapons to Rwanda found that banks in Belgium (Banque Bruxelles Lambert), France (Banque National de Paris), Switzerland (Union Bancaire Privée, Geneva), Italy (Banca Nazionale de Lavoro), and in the U.S. (Federal Reserve Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank) also handled financial transactions involved in the purchase of weapons.47

    Because the profitable trade in small arms is not subject to the same monitoring as the traffic in heavier weapons and involves so many actors, observers sometimes conclude that arms embargoes targeting such weapons can be nothing more than futile gestures. In the Rwandan case, once the Security Council had declared an arms embargo on May 17, arms dealers took the usual route of obtaining false declarations from friendly governments—in this case, Zaire—to hide continued traffic. Bagosora used this device in the Seychelles, presenting false documentation and claiming to be an officer in the army of Zaire. In another case, Zaire issued the necessary false documents for two arms dealers who intended to transfer arms stocked in Belgium to Goma for Rwandan use.48

    Still the embargo did slow and hinder the delivery of weapons to the interim government. The government of Egypt, which had been negotiating an exchange of weapons for tea then stocked at Mombasa, ended discussions after the imposition of the embargo. The government of Libya, which had also promised arms, in the end delivered none, perhaps because of the embargo.49 South African officials reportedly refused to violate the embargo but offered to help Bagosora obtain arms by other means.50 The government of the Seychelles asserts that it unknowingly violated the embargo because it believed the arms to be destined for Zaire and that it canceled a planned third shipment of arms when it learned this wasnot the case. In fact, Seychelles authorities may have known that the arms were meant for Rwanda even at the time of the first shipments. They may have refused to send the third shipment because the local press had embarrassed them by publicizing the deal.51 In June, the British government issued an order prohibiting firms in the U.K. from selling arms from a third country to Rwanda as the Mil-Tec Corporation had been doing.52 At about the same time, U.S. authorities may have blocked the transfer of funds from the Federal Reserve Bank that were intended to pay for the last shipment of the Mil-Tec Corporation.53 In a case to be discussed below, the French company SOFREMAS, ready to do business for U.S.$8 million worth of arms on May 6 reportedly decided in the end not to do so because of the embargo.54

    The arms embargo, first mentioned on April 30, was imposed only on May 17, after thousands more people had been slaughtered. After that time, governments acted to enforce compliance on individuals and corporations operating on their territory only slowly or not at all. Rwandan authorities feared a disruption in the flow of arms and the prospect of an embargo was one of the most important spurs to the policy of “pacification.” Had the embargo been put in place earlier and enforced more rigorously, it might have pushed the interim government to end the slaugher instead of just changing the way it was carried out.
    https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno15-8-02.htm


    The spread of arms during and before the genocide Almost every Rwandan household possessed traditional tools before April 1994. Results of the quantitative survey confirm that most people viewed machetes as essential tools, although some respondents noted that they could also be used as weapons, especially for self-protection at night. In addition, Rwandans were required to carry a traditional arm at the obligatory night patrols.   Interview results indicate that neither firearms nor other modern arms were widespread among the population. In Tambata, as in the other surveyed locations, only the local police carried firearms before the genocide. During the genocide, however, several modern weapons were handed out. The distribution of these modern weapons—guns and grenades—was highly organized in Tambata. A leading army major from neighbouring Ceruru supplied the arms; his assistant and some local figures, including a former burgomaster and the agricultural specialist of the commune, were charged with distributing them, initially from the communal office. Especially ex-soldiers and Interahamwe received the arms, but they were also handed out to local people who were seen as capable of using them. Weapons were not stored at the communal office for any period of time; a sector-specific pick-up schedule ensured that the weapons were picked up quickly. Severalrespondents mentioned the weapons stock was hidden in a civilian’s house when the RPF arrived.
    http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/filea...WP2-Rwanda.pdf

    The U.N. is, successfully pushing for gun control in East African nations with current genocides: Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ethiopia. Several others, such as Rwanda and Uganda, have recent histories of genocide against disarmed victims. Quite plainly, the U.N. believes that resisting an actual genocide in progress is not a sufficient reason for someone to want to own a gun.

    A similar disarmament project is being pushed by the United Nations in the South African Development Community.
    A set of mandatory anti-gun laws mostly similar to East Africa's Nairobi Protocol is also being pushed in southern Africa, for the nations in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Two of the SADC nations--Zimbabwe and Congo--are the sites current genocides.
    Even more extreme U.N. gun prohibitions are being imposed in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Among the ECOWAS states where the U.N. has successfully pushed victim disarmament are the Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) and Guinea. According to Genocide Watch, Ivory Coast has entered the final pre-genocide phase of "preparation."
    In Guinea, the National Alliance for Democracy and Development warns that, "There is a looming Rwanda-type genocide..."
    The gun prohibition lobbies have so thoroughly penetrated the United Nations that, at the U.N. anti-gun conference which begins on June 26, gun prohibition lobby staff which actually be serving as delegates from various governments.
    The prohibition lobbies and their U.N. allies will tell you that people never need guns for protection--not for protection from rapists, and not for protection from genocidaires. Governments and the United Nations will protect everyone. The tragedy of disarmed victims in the Sudan, and all over Africa, shows the deadly falseness of the prohibitionist promise. For decades, millions of Africans have been slaughtered by genocidal tyrants while the rest of the world stood idle. Now, the United Nations has become objectively complicit in genocide, by trying to ensure that never again will anyone targeted for genocide be able to use a firearm to save herself or her family.
    http://davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/gun-...d-genocide.htm

Similar Threads

  1. Promote the triumphs
    By uBestRi in forum Small Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-07-2014, 07:02
  2. idea to help promote gun ownership
    By luckoftheirishza in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 29-03-2014, 19:07
  3. Help promote GFSA policies...
    By Bertie1 in forum Gun Free South Africa - The Truth
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 13:35

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •