From the horse's mouth: The UN's plan for global citizen disarmament

[steelheart]

With this report, Rebecca Peters, one of the architects of the Australian gun confiscation and the UN's mouthpiece on global gun control, reveals the UN's true intentions for global gun control.

For those of you who think the UN is not a threat to gun owners in the United States, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

GUN violence is a global epidemic that kills an estimated 1000 people a day and stronger international controls on the sale and movement of arms are needed, a report released today said.

"If 1000 people a day were dying of avian flu, the world would sit up and take notice," said the report, published by IANSA, a group of agencies including Amnesty International and Oxfam.

The report was released ahead of the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference, a summit of world leaders to discuss arms legislation that is held every five years and meets in New York next month.

Gun violence, and the heavy toll it takes of human lives, was being ignored, IANSA director Rebecca Peters told reporters.

IANSA estimates that there are about 640 million small arms in the world, 59 per cent of them in the hands of civilians.

As many as 1.8 million people had been shot dead since the last UN review in 2001, it said.

The report said the problem was especially bad in developing countries, where easy access to guns, combined with widespread poverty, often created a lethal situation.
Ms Peters urged the United Nations to impose global regulations on arms distribution and set minimum guidelines for national rules on gun control.

"The conference must stop looking at this in such a fragmented way," she said.

The report recommended international co-operation to control the sale and transfer of firearms.

"The availability and misuse of guns, the high firearm death rates in many parts of the world and the means by which guns are spread around the world, are aspects of a common global problem - the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms," it said.

The perception that there was a difference between legal and illegal weapons was a dangerous fallacy, the report said.

Large numbers of firearms were manufactured legally, then stolen or bought illegally - yet little was done when an arms shipment went missing.

"It should be that when guns move into illegal hands, an alarm should go off," said Ms Peters.

This little nugget of wisdom is most revealing:

The perception that there was a difference between legal and illegal weapons was a dangerous fallacy, the report said.

In other words, all guns must be outlawed and confiscated.

Source:
www.news.com.au/

 

[Battler]

Interestingly, in her speeches Rebecca Peters never mentions confiscation of guns.

She mentions how the Australian thing really went down, a more thorough and comprehensive "registration" process. Guns were graciously "bought back" from people who could not meet the registration requirement.

But there was no confiscation. . . . .

Honestly, most of the oz guns that could not be registered (subject to confiscation) are rusting underground with no ammo. They are gone, same thing I guess.

 

[steelheart]

Guns were graciously "bought back" from people who could not meet the registration requirement.

At 5 or 10% of their true value, I'm sure.:barf: For any government to buy them back at their true value would cost tens of billions of dollars, minimum.

As much as guns cost today, could you imagine "The Government" here "buying" all our guns at true value? It would cost them hundreds of billions. They would pay maybe $20 per gun - sorry about your lost money (but oh, well!)

Interestingly, in her speeches Rebecca Peters never mentions confiscation of guns.

But all of the former Australian gun owners I've ever seen interviewed about it do.

She's playing a shell game with the facts (what a surprise).

 

[ArcherAndShooter]

Let's do some simple math...

By THEIR stats, 1000 people a day are killed by gunshots. That includes combat, since if that number was due to only civilian uses of guns you KNOW they'd have mentioned the fact.

So, 1000 people * 365 days = 365,000 people worldwide per year.

ASSUME their estimate of 640 million small arms and 59% civilian ownership are correct:

640,000,000 * .59 = 377,600,000 civilian small arms in the world.

ASSUMING all of those guns are usable, and not in collections or museums or whatnot:

377,600,000 guns / 365,000 fatalities = 1034.5 guns per fatality.

Put another way, less than one civilian gun in a thousand kills someone in any given year, ASSUMING the military small arms kill NO ONE. If you apply the 59% rate to deaths as well as firearms ownership, you get:

365,000 total deaths * .59 = 215,350 deaths per year due to CIVILIAN firearms, which means that you are actually looking at:

377,600,000 guns / 215,350 fatalities = 1753.4 guns per fatality.

So even buying their data and making some very generous assumptions of our own (such as that each and every gun used to shoot someone ONLY kills one person):

--> only one civilian gun out of almost two thousand is involved in a fatality.

AND THE SOLUTION IS TO GET RID OF ALL 1752 OF THE REST OF THEM?

You'd think even these folks would see you'd be more effective going after the criminals.

BTW, with the current world population of 6.5 billion (source here: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html), and 1,000 gun fatalities per day, that means the average person's chance of dying from gun violence is

365,000 / 6,500,000,000 = .00005 per year.

You'd think even these folks would see there are more pressing problems to put our energies into.

Talk about an agenda coming through... :barf: :barf: :barf:

 

[Battler]

Steelheart:

Honestly, the buyback on the guns (not sure of accessory investment) was at favorable prices to the reluctant sellers compared to what they bought them for.

I've actually heard this fact touted by an antigun person to offset an implied allegation that he and his ilk were "helping" the affected gunowner.

To the victim of such policies, his loss is far more than merely economic. . . .

 

[steelheart]

Honestly, the buyback on the guns (not sure of accessory investment) was at favorable prices to the reluctant sellers compared to what they bought them for.

That's the first time I've heard that - I figured "The Governmnet" in Australia would do the same as "The Government" here does when it wants your property (pay you whay they want to pay, not what the appraised value is - either that or just take it from you).

To the victim of such policies, his loss is far more than merely economic. . .

Exactly. Guns represent much more than metal and wood. They are the tools of liberty.

You'd think even these folks would see there are more pressing problems to put our energies into.

Talk about an agenda coming through...

Right you are, ArcherAndShooter. But then "gun control" isn't about guns - it's about control.