So whos watching the gun debate on PPV?

I dont know if it started different dates or times elsewhere, but it just started here in Ca.

Interesting so far, nothing I didnt expect.

UN rep - Australia and Britian banned guns, deaths by guns has gone down. US has more gun deaths then Canada, Australia, and UK. Kept repeating 11500 deaths in the US. Statistics about being more likely to die by guns in the US then anywhere esle. Peace is obtained by banning guns etc etc.

NRA - more likely to be mugged in London then New York city. Violent crime rates of UK and Australia are higher then US. He is for giveing guns to responsible people and takeing them away from criminals. Noted different laws like a felon when caught with a gun get min 5 years automatically. UN has no right to tell US what to do, we have Bill of Rights. Disarming law abiding citizens emboldens criminals.

Okay where do I eve start. I know my view is biased by the UN lady had her butt handed to her. The NRA guy obviously came prepared with facts to back up his statements. The UN lady basically used emotion like makeing the world safe, makeing our kids safe.

Moderator Question: Violent crime has risen in countries that bannned guns outright, how do you respond?

UN lady - didnt know how to answer, kept saying that isnt true, this statement is not true. She then proceed to say "its absolutely untrue that Britians are cowering behind their doors afraid........" She was not able to finish because the audience (who are British) disrupted her with mumblings, a few shouts, rubbish being called. They obviously did not agree with her statement.

NRA repsonse - In a UK paper that day, 50% leap in gun crime since the banning of guns. Australia had a 35% increase in violent crime since banning guns. He then went on to say "I asked American women this one question and now I will ask you (holds up a poster of a criminal with panty hose on his head). SHould you be allowed to shoot this rapist before he cuts your throat? 100% of the women I have asked said yes."

UN lady - women need to be protected by the police and by the government. People are not safe with guns. Haveing a gun escalates any situation your in. Stated some statistic from SOuth AMerica that said a person who uses a firearm to defend themselves is 4x more likely to be killed.

Moderator question: UN lady, you want moderate gun controll, what do you mean by moderate?

UN lady - not banning all guns. Owners need to be licensed, registered, provide that they are trained to use the weapon, certain categories of guns should be banned like rapid fire and high powered weapons, there should be a limit on the # of guns someone owns. She also added that its almost impossible to tell a bad guy from a good guy. So how do you know if a person should be a ble to own a gun or not?

NRA guy - "We are all in trouble if Miss Peters and the UN cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys." People know in their hearts that guns can and will protect them. Miss peters and the UN want a global permission slip to ban all guns, this is not a moderate view. She stated previously that gun capable of fireing over 100 meters should be banned. Produced pamphlet after pamphlet after report supporting this.

UN lady - yes she and the UN want to see a drastic reduction in the # of firearms around the world. Reduction in the hands of governments and individuals. Feels that there is a arms race between governments and individuals.

Mod question: Does the NRA disagree with worldwide bans / internation treaties banning chemical weapons, landmines, and nuclear weapons?

NRA - he rejects any intrustion on the bill of rights. Landmines, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons are not individual rights. Dont defend your home with these. Firearms not in same category, firearms are a specific tool. Firearms not indiscriminate.

UN - "Well I am happy that the NRA thinks landmines and chemical weapons are bad." What about assault weapons? There is no reason to own them. The NRA has always been unweilding on this issue. She rattles of the name of certain "assault rifles."

Mod: How do you respond to the assault rifles?

NRA - Machine guns have been regulated since the 1930's. WHat we are talking about are self loading semi automatic rifles. People like the UN try to confuse the American people and others.

Mod question: Do semi automatic firearms have a legitimate role?

UN - semi automatic rifles were designed to kill people, to kill lots of people. They were designed by and for the military. No reason a citizen should own one. Talked with a hunters group in Australia, they said that only city boys hunted with a semi automatic rifle. A real hunter didnt need to. Handguns same issue. No legit reason to own one. There are legit reason for firearms like sport shooting and some hunting. You can still ban guns and be a sporting nation.

NRA - I dont remember his respone sorry, I cant read my notes.

Mod question: How is the NRA involved in the UN small arms process?

NRA - They oppose any weakening of the 2nd amendment. Especially oppose a club of unelected eliteists responsible to no one telling the US what they should do, telling the world what they should do.

UN - Americans need to get over our preoccupation with ourselves. Not everyone in the world is thinking about us. The UN process deals with many countries and not just the US (at this point it kind of turned into USA bashing which had nothing to do with the question). The right to life is more important then what the USA wants.

At this point my hand cramped up from takeing notes. I am sure there will be a full transcript available soon and maybe even the video. Hope this helps a few people.

The rest of the debate was really about the UN lady saying how the banning of guns would help the world. NRA guy saying that hes more interested in an individual protecting themselves and not putting all our trust into government.

You HAVE to watch it if you can. There were many great points that he made.