No way in hell this will happen!

[sturgis]

OK you're right.

My Wish:

 

Some day the US will recall all our military,

we will stop sending relief money to other countries

and we will vacation here.

 

The world will be a much better place then.

TJ

P.S. At least I give a real location.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... and after 20 or 30 years of paranoia and ethnic cleansing amongst yourself, whe'll have to brilliant empty continent to vacation on !

good deal !

 

sry couldn't resist to such sillyness

[guinnessman]

So, in an attempt to curb small arms sales throughout the world, a move that would no doubt have some effect on the amount of gun-related wars and crime (whether the gun is "legal", it can still end up in the hands of criminals. The fact that most gun crime is commited by people with illegal guns really ought to illustrate this), the UN wonders if asking its member states to act as role-models for other nations by curtailing their own gun ownership.

 

Obviously, the member states who allow private citizens to legally own automatic assault rifles have a problem with this. Why shoud THEY have their rights violated just to act like role-models for other nations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm, I'm not overly confident that this move by the UN would have any effect in curbing war/gun-crime. Let's face it, the countries that are going to comply with any such measure aren't really the ones that we have to worry about. I'm not gonna mention US gun law/crime or how much weapons they sell (because that would be stealing the fun from some forum posters who are no doubt consulting their 'Why the US sucks statistics database' even as we speak ) but I can't really see the PRC or Russia stop selling AK variants left right and centre because the UN asks them to, nor can I see countries prohibiting the sale of firearms to their citizenry faced with the same UN move. Even then there are some countries that may want to comply with such a measure, but it would be impractible to do so, because firearms are so prolific in their society that restricting them would be unenforceable. And again, before anyone says 'He means the US' I'm actually thinking about countries like Somalia and Columbia, to name two.

As for the whole role-model thing, there are quite a few countries where private citizens can own automatic weapons which are pretty decent places to live, the most obvious example springing to mind is Switzerland. And then of course you have Italy, which IIRC had banned the private ownership of automatic weapons, then reinstated it a year or two ago. Guess what? The crime rate dropped. I'll dig out the article I read that detailed this when I get home, was in the Daily Telegraph I think.

Don't get me wrong, in theory this is a good move from the UN. But regardless of the actions of other countries, the sheer inability and/or reluctance of the UN to enforce it's will - even in situations which it would have been practicable and morally correct to do so ie the Yugoslavian civil war - means nobody is going to take this seriously. And again, before anyone says thats the fault of the US for vetoing past UN resolutions, whilst it's true that they have, there are other countries who are equally if not more guilty than the US in this regard.

 

 

EDITED: Cos when I finished typing and posted this I realised a lot of what I'd said had been pre-empted by those with faster fingers. Sorry guys!

[Crazy_Harry]

right, which is the crux of my second post- the members who have the power to resist the UN- the permanent members, in this case the US, Russia and China, WILL veto any action by the UN that would negatively affect their ability to sell munitions to whoever wants to buy them.

 

One of the UKs biggest exports is small arms, through BAE- I can't see THEM putting up with a ban on small arms sales.

 

The point is though, is that its good that the UN is at least TRYING to act like a moral compass, and calling on its member states to act like role-models for other nations, its just a shame, as my previous post stated, that they have absolutely no power to do so against the biggest offenders in this case, namely pretty much every permanent member of the security council.

[clmwrx]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really wanted this to be a debate on guns and the UN, but baka box you have derailed me.

 

You can not post such a thing and expect nothing back.

 

Now to the point, atleast those prisoners are ALIVE! The terrorist cut innocent peoples heads off, and they cut various limbs off our soldiers. It is a shame you want to call that abuse.

 

Now please just debate.

[Pablo]

I wish you'd at least warned me I was going to an NRA website. That'll teach me to check properties first.

[Sledge]

I'm going to raise this point again: the people having their rights disregarded in those pictures have been found guilty of NOTHING. Even if they were convicted terorists, it would not justify them being abused by a country who invaded Iraq on a platform of "Hey, we're here to stop Saddam abusing your inalienable human rights." I know this point will be ignored by all the apologists for American torture (but who get so worked up when the other side does it), but I think it should be made.

 

[BakaBox]

I really wanted this to be a debate on guns and the UN, but baka box you have derailed me.

 

You can not post such a thing and expect nothing back.

 

Now to the point, atleast those prisoners are ALIVE! The terrorist cut innocent peoples heads off, and they cut various limbs off our soldiers. It is a shame you want to call that abuse.

 

Now please just debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So if I post a picture where I have packed your family naked together like that, with bags over their heads, that's okay? It certainly isn't abuse, is it?

[Lord Jebus]

Lol, Some Americans think what they did in Iraq was right, tee hee

 

 

Edit (2 of them now): America trolls again, cos being american and being wrong is Unpatriotic.

 

[Pablo]

Lol, americans think what they did in Iraq was right, tee hee

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not all of them. Try not to generalise, eh?

[Lord Jebus]

Not all of them. Try not to generalise, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Duly noted.

[Holmes]

Ok, so pretty much anyone outside the states is for the ban, but the people that are actually affected by it and really have the only opinion are against it.

 

This is just like the VCR. Most (not including me) do not care about the ban of replicas in the UK because we do not live there, and the people in the UK do not care if firearms are banned in the US because NEITHER OF US LIVES THERE! So who's to say that we should or shouldn't have firearms? And the majority of the people that own firearms that are killing innocent people own them illegally. Why don't we just STOP MAKING THEM ALLTOGETHER?! It's never going to stop. They exist, deal with it. End of.

[Lord Jebus]

See, people like M635C make me care, If Americans are going to take a bigoted view like that, and be supported *cough*clmwrx*cough* , then there's no way in hell they should all own firearms .. ..Just those that prove they have an IQ higher than 6.

 

Normally, I wouldn't give a flying *fruitcage* and wish the americans best of luck

[Connery]

Now to the point, atleast those prisoners are ALIVE! The terrorist cut innocent peoples heads off, and they cut various limbs off our soldiers. It is a shame you want to call that abuse.

 

Now please just debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but up until the point of execution, the terrorists treated their hostages very well. At that prison, the prisoners were treated like utter *beep*.

 

Which would you rather have? About five seconds of pain, or a year of humiliation (and probably pain as well)?

[Sledge]

Something about only Americans being allowed to express an opinion on this news story

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't post it on an international, mainly British forum, then.

 

[Lord Jebus]

Don't post it on an international, mainly British forum, then.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

QFT.

[Crazy_Harry]

holmes- of course it is the case, with ANY ban, that the people it doesn't directly affect are either not going to care or be pro-ban, and those it DOES affect will be anti- it.

 

Fact is though, the UN are making their case around the idea that its pretty hard to talk about peace and what-have-you, when all five permanent members of the security council make a RIDICULOUS amount of money out of the arms trade.

 

If these five members all signed a pledge to cease production of firearms except for domestic consumption, they'd lose a tremendous amount of revenue, but also the arms trade itself would be dramatically reduced- no, it would not stop wars, certainly not overnight, but the knock-on effect of those 5 countries stopping producing weapons would be incredible- sure, some one else would fill the gap, but then, they'd have to be non-un members to do it, and then, they could equally only trade with non-un members...

 

Of course, such an occurance is about as likely as me ever being able to make up my mind about which AEG to get next, so I'll not be holding my breath of this.

[guinnessman]

Hmm, it must be one of the irrefutable laws of Arnies that any post touching on international politics in any way, shape or form has got to degenerate into a completely pointless slagging match over the US. It's the forum version of trench warfare - nobody ever changes anyones opinion, it's just fought out over the same old ground. Maybe the mods should pin a 'Argue about the US' thread or something

 

Anyhoo.....

 

 

right, which is the crux of my second post- the members who have the power to resist the UN- the permanent members, in this case the US, Russia and China, WILL veto any action by the UN that would negatively affect their ability to sell munitions to whoever wants to buy them.

 

One of the UKs biggest exports is small arms, through BAE- I can't see THEM putting up with a ban on small arms sales.

 

The point is though, is that its good that the UN is at least TRYING to act like a moral compass, and calling on its member states to act like role-models for other nations, its just a shame, as my previous post stated, that they have absolutely no power to do so against the biggest offenders in this case, namely pretty much every permanent member of the security council.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeedy, not to mention France and Germany (are they the other two with permanent seats on the security council? I'm sure France is....). For all the stick the US gets about supplying Iraq before Gulf War 1 it was the French who designed their sophisticated air defence network. And then joined the UN coalition and very neatly collaberated in the act of cyber-warfare that crashed it during that war

 

You know I've always wondered about the UK selling small-arms all over the place - what is it we sell exactly? After all, apart from a couple of police forces in the US, the UK is the only country I know of that adopted the SA80. I do remember listening to a debate on the arms trade on the radio once, and one of the panel stated that the term 'arms trade' is a bit misleading, because that covers anything military related. So selling £1 million of uniforms or stuff like bomb-disposal gear is lumped into the same category as small-arms, artillery etc. I've never been able to get an accurate breakdown of what items specifically are sold by the UK to other countries.

 

Would agree (again, in theory) with the UN trying to act like a moral compass, but again, how true is it realistically speaking? Ignoring issues like the morality of the UN anyway - the Iraqi oil scandal pops to mind here - the other side of the coin is, is it right to stop selling arms all the time? If, for instance, North Korea invaded South Korea, in my opinion it wouldn't be morally right NOT to supply a democratic nation with weapons to defend against a despotic and brutal regime. More awkwardly, would it have been right to arm (again, purely for examples sake) the South Koreans against an invasion thirty years ago, when the South had some very dodgy issues re democracy? Okay, they wouldn't be perfect, but they would still be better than the North, so is it a matter of relative 'evil'? (for want of a better word).

 

This is where I think the UN would do a lot better keeping shtum with these high-minded pronouncements. People know they are essentially meaningless, so the UN either gets laughed at for it's naviety and helplessness, or insulted because it's trying to interfere with the internal matters of sovereign states. No-win situation. They really should just stick to the healthcare stuff.....

 

And the majority of the people that own firearms that are killing innocent people own them illegally. Why don't we just STOP MAKING THEM ALLTOGETHER?! It's never going to stop. They exist, deal with it. End of.

 

Quite true.

[Crazy_Harry]

its a shame that most debates always seem to end up as US-bashing/US-blind support- in any given debate with enough debaters, the polar extremes will always emerge- and its our job to wade in with the big pointy stick of righteousness

 

5 permanent members of the security council, rather stupidly, were the f major powers who were left and hadn't been on the wrong side post 1945- UK, USA, Russia, China and France. Germany doesn't have a permanent seat, despite being one of the most powerful countries in Europe. Neither does Japan, despite its economy.

 

BAE own H&K, among others...we also make quite a large killing (ahaha, joke not intended) from shipping Hawk 'training' jets to dodgy governments who then fit 'em out with guns and bombs. Normally the same guns and bombs we sold them last week, too...

 

regarding the sale of small arms, well, that is ultimately the tricky thing- banning the sale of arms to ALL countries would leave those weaker countries open to attack from those countries who already owned a tonne- it actually would, in terms of sheer politics, be BETTER for the US and UK if the UN signed such a treaty, because all the annoying little countries that we enjoy kicking off with would suddenly find they couldn't source their guns cheaply anywhere. However, it would mean that a country like Israel, already a nuclear power, one of the few nations in the region to possess a large airforce and navy, and a producer of its own munitions, would be able to walk all over its neighbours (ahaha, whatever am I saying) with impunity because it wouldn't be overly affected by a ban on sales.

 

So, technically, those people complaining abou the US being forced to sign such a treaty are in fact failing to see that it would enable America to gain even MORE military strength than it already has, even though it would mean lost revenue from its gun sales.

 

But, its not really going to happen, as guns are just too big a business for the security council members.

[clmwrx]

I share some of your views as well. There is no way to disarm the world. It is impossible. Who could possibly go to Africa and retrieve every unregistered gun there? Also a ban of sales will hurt the global economy more than anything. On the note about Israel, there is no way they will give up their guns as they feel the need to defend themselves from neiboring countries.

 

It has always been my motto that laws only affect the ones who follow them. Which translates easily into the pending VCR bill. It only takes 1% to ruin it for the other 99%

 

EDIT: On the note of prisoner abuse which is way off topic. In no way do I condone their activities. I also do not think it was right. I was just saying it could of been a lot worse.

[Rec]

BAE own H&K, among others...

 

Btw, not quite true anymore, several German investors bought it back meanwhile

[BakaBox]

On the note about Israel, there is no way they will give up their guns as they feel the need to defend themselves from neiboring countries. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just like yourselves.

[Crazy_Harry]

of course, and I don't doubt it would have become MUCH worse if it hadn't been discovered and duly nipped in the bud- frankly, this was how the concentration camps in WW2 became so hellish- government complicancy in inhumane treatment combined witht the fact that they also had no reason to bend to international pressure. Humans are unfortunately extremely inventive and tend to enjoy take things to greater extremes as they find they cn get away with things.

 

but aside from that, no, you could never "disarm" somewhere like africa or the middle-east, gun ownership is too enmeshed into everyday eixistence (I am in no way saying that these places have more gun crime because of it, more that its just far more common to have a kalashnikov in the house, even though they normally don't get used for much).

 

However, a curtailment on sales WOULD, in the long term, affect these places, as it would in the US, and not necessarily in an entirely positive way. Certainly, it would rapily reduce sales INTO countries, but given that most of the smaller, poorer countries are equiped with guns that, to be blunt, have proven longevity- kalashnikovs and WWII rifles, I can't see it really affected much quickly. Also it would certainly not be beyond an African nation, for eg, to be able to develop their own small arms in a short space of time, especially given the simplicity of something like the AK47. they've not done in the past because they've never needed to, but a ban on sales would be the perfect incentive.

 

still, its a symbolic gesture, probably just to get the debate going, and what MIGHT come of it, is a vague agreement to reduce sales into the more disreputable countries- Amnesty have just published a report condemning China, for eg, of supplying a lot of countries wth weaponry that perhaps they shouldn't be.

 

But then, thats kind of the problem with the arms trade- its not in your interests, as a gun dealer, to be selling stuff to people who aren't going to use them that much, and frankly there's more money to be had in flogging stuff to poor countries that lack the ability to produce their own than to rich countries that have enormous factories churning them out by the bucketload.

 

Ah, what a cynical world in which we live...

 

However

[Perch]

I live in a small country where firearms are something usual. there s a firearm in maybe 2 of 3 housholds.

But all those anti gun nuts make me fear more an more, for gods sake in the last change in the weapons law, laws affecting guns haven't changed, but now even e bicycle chain is considered as a weapon, strange world, isn't it?

I hope by god that this treaty will never make it's way out of hell to meet us gun lovers. I want to have the right to protect at least my own house.

 

firearms are a part of my life

 

Quoted for Truth:

They may try, but like every country involved in the UN they don't have the stomach to fight a full scale war against well armed patriots who are more than capable of defending their land.

[Pablo]

The "great" thing about the arms trade of course is that the big 5 lend money to countries on the condition they use it to buy arms from them, so the arms trade is in fact highly subsidised - the weapons systems, vehicles and equipment are paid for by (for example) Chinese cash, which their government earns back with interest (plus of course, even if the debt isn't repaid, the arms dealers get guaranteed payment by their own governments). As an aside, they impose trade rules that keep that country dependent on imports from the lending country which leaves their own people disposessed, which leads to further internal conflict which requires further military spending. Genius.

[Skarclaw]

the only way they will disarm me is after i send a good 100 or so of them away in body bags!!!! they will never disarm me. it is my second amendment. it is my right. and i will carry it on FOREVER!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, its good to show how responsible gun owners are.

 

 

I doubt you would kill 100 of them before you got arrested or shot either, that is just stupid.

 

Of course, you are pretty leet.