LifeNRA Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Here are two pieces I read in the past! It took me awhile but I found them! http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/swan_james/1574979.html# ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UN lacking balance on small-arms issue However well-intentioned the United Nation's conference on limiting small arms may be, it fails to acknowledge the millions of legitimate sport shooters in the world and the peaceful ideals they stand for By James A. Swan, Ph.D. Author "In Defense of Hunting" The United Nations will hold a global gun control forum from July 7-11 in New York. The meeting is a follow-up to a similar forum in 2001, which established its Program of Action, designed to "prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects." It should be noted that the UN defines "small arms" as weapons for personal use. This includes not only sporting shotguns, rifles and handguns, but machine guns, portable anti-tank guns and grenade launchers. "Light arms" include those weapons that need a crew to fire. The Program of Action includes calling for establishing national agencies to coordinate small arms, a pledge to destroy surplus weapons, tracking "officially held guns," marking of guns and light weapons at the point of manufacture and maintaining gun manufacture records. At the July UN meeting nations will report on their progress and showcase programs aimed at stopping gun violence, according to the UN. It also is likely that delegates will hear proposals calling for a worldwide tax on the sales of firearms by individuals — such as those recently put forth by French president Jacque Chirac and Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Revenues generated from such a tax are proposed to go toward feeding world hunger. The 2001 UN forum on small arms and light weapons was a dramatic event. It included a public gun burning as part of an international Small Arms Destruction Day. Maybe similar fireworks will happen this time as well, although I have not seen any press releases about upcoming gun burnings as of press time. However, the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs offers "A Destruction Handbook on Small Arms, Light Weapons, Ammunition and Explosives," to help anyone from holding their own gun burning at a time of their own choosing. If you have been watching the TV news recently and seen the well-armed children soldiers in Liberia, as well as the carnage in various civil wars and military actions around the world, you can understand why a peacekeeping body might be concerned about illicit small arms that fall into the wrong hands. The UN should be concerned about this, but the UN is supposed to be a group that promotes peace, and that should include acknowledging and respecting legal small arms owners. What is totally missing from any of the UN documents and press releases about small arms that I have seen is an acknowledgement of legal small arms owners and users. This is cause for concern. There are some 65 million to 70 million people in the world who participate in target shooting and hunting. The vast majority of uses of guns in developed countries are for sport. For example, in the United States, according to criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used in defensive purposes about 2 million times a year, versus 600,000 times a year for gun crime. But, there are at least 26 million U.S. citizens who participate in various shooting sports. The apex of shooting sports competition is the Olympics. Shooting sports were part of the first modern Olympics in 1896, and today there are 18 different shooting sports events in the Summer Olympics and eight biathlon events in the Winter Olympics. The International Paralympics also feature 16 shooting sport events. Shooting sports are not only enormously popular; they also are the safest of all popular sports, and getting safer. According to the U.S. National Safety Council's Injury Facts Report, in 2000 U.S. firearms accidents in general fell to the lowest number since recordkeeping began in l903. Unfortunately, the National Safety Council does not differentiate between injuries in sport shooting and accidental injuries from firearms, in general. So, we do not have firm statistics on the numbers of target-shooting accidents in the United States, but we do have many indications of their safety. Bob Mitchell of the USA Shooting Team is aware of only one firearms injury in competitive shooting matches since he first became involved with shooting sports competitions in l963. The U.S. National Skeet and Sporting Clays Associations have no record of any weapons-related fatality associated with a registered skeet or sporting clays competition. Thanks to some 55,000 volunteer Hunter Education Instructors in North America — whose courses are mandatory in all 50 states to qualify for getting a hunting license — hunting is safer than many popular sports, including golf, tennis, basketball and even table tennis. According to the International Hunter Education Association, in 2000 there were 91 fatal accidents and 835 non-fatal accidents for the more than 13 million licensed hunters in the United States. In contrast, the U.S. National Safety Council reports that recreational boating and bicycling account for 800 to 900 fatalities per year each, and swimming fatalities normally exceed 1,000 per year. Archery is even safer. An agent at Accordia Insurance Company who handles the policy for the American Archery Association told me that during the last five years, she has had only one injury claim for an archer. This was a repeated stress injury — an elbow problem from a tournament archer who shot too much with improper form. There are more than 3 million hunters in the U.S. who hunt with bow and arrow. From 1993-1998, the last five years for which data is available, injuries per year have never been more than 20 and fatal injuries per year range from three to six. Most of these people were injured in falls, especially out of tree stands. Despite the enormous popularity and safety of shooting sports — not just in the U.S., but worldwide — they receive no notice in United Nations discussions of small arms. This is especially strange since the UN also has a major facility in Switzerland, where target shooting is the national sport. The Swiss, have one of the highest ownerships of firearms in the world, and a comparatively low crime rate. This situation speaks to how social and cultural factors influence gun use and crime. United Nations Resolution 50/13, adopted Nov. 21, 1995, affirms its continued support for the Olympic Games as a vehicle for supporting world peace, a better world and the "well-being of mankind." As shooting sports are part of the Olympics, Resolution 50/13 implicitly endorses firearms sports. The UN should recognize this in their discussions of small arms. To only focus illicit small arms, the UN contributes to stereotyping all small arms as bad. That is neither accurate nor fair. And as for the proposal to tax all firearms sales to feed the world's hungry, in many parts of the world firearms are important to feed people. In developing countries, like Africa, sport hunters provide millions of dollars to rural communities, as well as fresh meat through programs like CAMPFIRE. In the United States, each year people consume more than 750 million pounds of wild meat, which is roughly equivalent to 2 million head of cattle. Priced at the conservative rate of $1.75 per pound for beef, the wild meat consumed in this country would be valued at $1.3 billion. This does not include American Indian and Eskimo communities, many of whom depend on wild game for survival. Poverty and hunger are serious problems. They are a cause of crime, war and civil conflict and influence illicit small arms use. More money could help alleviate human suffering, but to target a tax on legal firearms owners to solve the world's problems penalizes law-abiding people and totally ignores the economic, social and wildlife conservation values of sporting arms and sportsmen. Perhaps even more important, demonizing all firearms may make social conditions worse, for, as John Lott Jr. and other firearms scholars have shown, more legal guns in the hands of private citizens usually results in fewer crimes. I have a proposal for the United Nations: Instead of taxing firearms owners, why not tax people for making outrageous proposals? We all pay a price for political buffoonery already. And in terms of saving the environment, all the hot air generated by pompous politicians probably is a significant cause of global warming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.N. to host global gun-control event Conference backs measures to track, confiscate, destroy various weapons Posted: June 8, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Jon Dougherty © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Just days after French President Jacques Chirac called for a a global tax on individual firearms purchases, the United Nations has announced it is gearing up to sponsor a global gun-control forum next month in New York City. The July 7-11 meeting builds on a similar forum held in 2001, in which participating nations signed a "Program of Action" to "Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects." The Program of Action, or PoA, "sets the first global norms of good behavior to reduce small-arms proliferation," says a statement by the U.N. Small Arms Conference. "By agreeing to this document, all countries have formally committed themselves to take action" regarding the proliferation of "illicit" small arms and light weapons. Among the provisions in the PoA agreed upon by member states: A commitment to make "illicit gun production/possession a criminal offense"; The establishment of a national coordination agency on small arms; A pledge to identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons; Track "officially held guns"; The notification of nations who were the original supplier of weapons when those weapons are re-exported; The marking of guns and light weapons at the point of manufacture, so they can be tracked and traced globally; and The maintenance of gun manufacture records. "The purpose of the [meeting of states] in July 2003 is for governments to report their progress and lessons learned in the first two years of implementing the PoA," said the conference statement. Groups "will make their own independent report on governments' activities, as well as showcasing the important contributions that [non-governmental organizations] themselves are making to stop gun violence." U.N. officials did not return requests for comment before press time. News of the gun-control event comes on the heels of statements made by some Group of 8 members who say they support a global tax on individuals for every gun purchase they make. In a speech at the annual meeting of the G8, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pushed the arms-sales tax as a scheme whereby the world's wealthiest nations could fund efforts to eliminate world hunger, Bloomberg News reported earlier this week. The G8 countries are U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia. Quoting the Brazilian paper Folha de S. Paulo, Bloomberg reported that Lula said such taxes would create "a global fund capable of giving food to those who are hungry and for creating the conditions to end the causes of hunger." The idea was championed by French President Jacques Chirac, who said Lula's proposal was "forceful and convincing." "Lula's idea is a simple one. People must be able to eat three times a day, and that is not the case today," Chirac added, according to Agence France-Presse. "This unacceptable situation must be debated." According to CNSNews.com, Chirac also said a tax on weapons could be "quite justified." The United Nations has a history of pushing an anti-gun agenda. As early as Sept. 24, 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" – the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons. Annan identified them as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world. Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, however, such weapons account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100-mm caliber, and land mines. "Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process." Now dont tell me that the UN is not trying to take our guns away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParrotHead Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Re: UN wants less GUNS!!! Don't speak so quickly there - John Kerry has run this whole campaign and let it be know that he's all for uniting with the UN. In fact, he's quoted as saying that it's better for US troops to die under the UN flag than the US flag. Anyone that pledges that much allegance to the UN is more than capable of letting them have control over YOUR arms! As for myself and my personal opinions, the US Constitution states clearly that no foreign troops will ever be allowed on US soil and for a President to allow this would be grounds for treason, thus I have no belief that any UN sanctioned troops will ever get orders to retrieve US citizens guns. But if they ever do - those pretty blue helmets will make one **** of nice target! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParrotHead Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Re: UN wants less GUNS!!! [ QUOTE ] I have never seen such a quote. Any chance you can point me to it? Kerry (who by the way I think very little of) has repeatedly said that US military action should be more multilateral or "pass an international test". While I agree IN PRINCIPLE that we need to pay more attention to world opinion of our government we also cannot sacrifice our right to DEFEND ourselves with extreme velocity and violence. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn...-2004Oct19.html The Washington Post ran a story last week about John Kerry's approach to foreign policy. Here's one paragraph from that article: "Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' " Read it again, then read it again after that. This isn't some ancient yammering from Kerry back in the 1970's. This is contemporary Kerry. This is Kerry after having served a decade in the Senate. This is Kerry saying that it’s OK for Americans to die fighting for a cause ratified by the United Nations, but not OK for American soldiers to sacrifice their lives just fighting for the United States ... fighting for their country. America is not worth dying for. Dying for the United Nations is. “Pass a International Test” and “World Opinion”? In an address last week, the question of whether or not Kerry would have removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq came up. He says he would have, but only if he had been able to develop the appropriate international coalition. That means France and Germany. Well, there was no way in **** France and Germany were going to participate in dethroning their Sugar Daddy. Or have we all but forgotten or ignored (as the media has) France and Germanies “Oil for Food Program”? So that means that if it had been Kerry's call, Saddam Hussein would still be running the show in Iraq today. But wait! There's more! Please remember that Kerry also voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait! The reality is that if the great and wonderful John Kerry had been making the decisions Saddam would today be ruling over both Iraq and Kuwait today and Lord only knows who else! What does it take to make those of you with those Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers and yard signs understand the danger that this man presents to our country? Do you really believe that the American Commander in Chief should seek some sort of global permission, or the blessings of the United Nations before he can act in the defense of our homeland and our neighbors? Do you really believe that it OK for Americans to die in battle, just so long as they're fighting under the flag of the United Nations? John Kerry is a dangerous politician bent on granting to the majority of Europeans that which they desire so strongly, a weakened United States. He denigrated our servicemen and women when he returned from Vietnam, and he dishonors them and all that they stand for now by saying that while it is OK for them to die for the United Nations, their lives should not be put on the line for their own country. This is a man who truly believes that the United States is little more than a member "state" of the great UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.