1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

John Lott Speaks: U.N. vs. Guns

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by WAGCEVP, Jul 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

    WAGCEVP Member

    May 26, 2003
    John Lott Speaks: U.N. vs. Guns

    John Lott. FYI (copy below, reference links in original):
    July 11, 2003, 11:50 a.m.
    U.N. vs. Guns
    An international gun-control fight.

    By John R. Lott Jr.

    The U.S. government often makes American gun owners feel
    besieged. For example, over the last decade it is simply
    impossible to find one study by either the U.S. Justice
    Department or the Treasury that measures the benefits from
    people owning guns. While this has been done by both
    Democratic and Republican administrations, the Clinton
    administration surely set new standards for misleading
    attacks on gun ownership with its studies and public-service

    But if you think that is bad, the Clinton administration
    pales in comparison to the United Nations' attitude on gun
    ownership. This week the U.N. conference to "Prevent,
    combat, and eradicate the Illicit Trade in small arms and
    Light Weapons in All Aspects," which concludes today, puts
    these views in straightforward terms: Governments have the
    "right" to guns for "self defense and security needs." On
    the other hand, not one acceptable reason for individuals
    owning guns is mentioned. And to the extent that
    individuals do buy guns, third-world and western European
    countries are pushing for a tax on every gun purchase, with
    the money then being used to eliminate world hunger.

    WHEN GOVERNMENTS ARE A THREAT The U.N. claims that guns used
    in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every
    year. The solution proposed in conference's "Program of
    Action"? Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that
    countries "prevent, combat and eradicate" what those
    countries who want to stop rebels from getting the guns
    define as "the illicit trade in small arms"

    This may be an understandable "solution" from governments
    that don't trust their citizens. But it also represents a
    dangerous disregard for their citizens' safety and freedom.
    Why? First, and most obviously, because not all
    insurgencies are "bad." It is hardly surprising that
    infamous regimes such as those in Syria, Cuba, Rwanda,
    Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone support these "reforms."
    To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is
    like arguing that there is never anything such as a just

    In hindsight, would Europeans have preferred that no
    resistance was put up against Hitler? Should the French or
    Norwegian resistance movements simply have given up? Surely
    this would have minimized war causalities.

    Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda
    and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more
    than a million people hacked to death over the last seven
    years, were their citizens better off without guns?

    Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst
    regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their
    own citizens. Even assuming that the
    300,000-gun-deaths-per-year-in-armed-conflicts figure is
    accurate, the annual rate of government-sanctioned killing
    is five times higher. Adding the U.N.'s estimated deaths
    from gun suicides, homicides, and accidents still provides a
    number that is only a third as large.

    Of course, this last numerical example is questionable as
    gun control is more likely to increase than reduce violent
    crime. To put it in its most extreme form, suppose that
    tomorrow guns were banned, who would be most likely to turn
    them in? Presumably the most law-abiding citizens ??? not the

    criminals. And my own research shows that disarming
    law-abiding citizens relative to criminals emboldens the
    criminals to commit crimes.

    What about the massacre of civilians in Bosnia? Would that
    have been so easy if the Bosnian people had been able to
    defend themselves? And what about the Jews in the Warsaw
    ghetto during World War II? Wouldn't it have been better if
    they had more guns to defend themselves? More recently, the
    rules would have prevented the American government from
    assisting the Afghanis in their fight against the Soviet

    There is a second reason to avoid a ban on small arms. Even
    in free countries, where there is little risk of a
    totalitarian regime, gun bans all but invariably result in
    higher crime. In the U.S., the states with the highest
    gun-ownership rates have by far the lowest violent-crime
    rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest
    increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest
    drops in violent crime.

    Research by Jeff Miron at Boston University, examining
    homicide rates across 44 countries, found that countries
    with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the
    highest homicide rates. News reports in Britain showed how
    crimes with guns have risen 40 percent in the four years
    after handguns were banned in 1997. Police are extremely
    important in stopping crime, but almost always arrive on the
    scene after the crime occurs. What would the U.N. recommend
    that victims do when they face criminals by themselves?
    Passive behavior is much more likely to result in serious
    injury or death than using a gun to defend oneself.

    TAXING GUN SALES Brazil's President Liz Inacio Lula da Silva
    advocated the arms-sales tax as a way that the world's
    wealthy nations could eliminate world hunger. French
    President Jacques Chirac immediately said, "Lula's idea is a
    simple one. People must be able to eat three times a day,
    and that is not the case today." Elsewhere Chirac has also
    called the tax on guns "quite justified."

    Yet, this tax makes about as much sense as taxing medicine
    to help feed the poor. One would think that the rest of the
    world would understand that the police simply cannot be
    there all the time to protect people. The 2000
    International Crime Victimization Survey shows that almost
    all the western countries in their survey have much higher
    violent crime rates than the U.S., including: Australia,
    Canada, Denmark, England/Wales, Finland, France,
    Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden. (Jeff Miron argues
    that the relatively high murder rate in the United States is
    driven not by our gun-ownership rate but by gang violence
    that results from our drug-enforcement regulations.)

    The Bush administration deserves credit for stopping the
    2001 U.N. conference from implementing many of the same
    proposals that are still being pushed now. One thing you
    can say about those united nations: They sure are


    John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise

    Institute, is the author of the new released The Bias Against Guns.
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    <sarcasm> We can probably slaughter more than that in this new century. Disarm the commoners! </sarcasm>
  3. George Hill

    George Hill Member

    Dec 22, 2002
    Uintah Basin, UT
    The UN.


    Attached Files:



    Jan 1, 2003
    Ground Zero
    Excellent article. :)
  5. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Winter Haven, FL
  6. Bigjake

    Bigjake Member

    May 30, 2003
    North Central Ohio
    "It is astonishing that the German's managed to hold France with so few divisions, considering that everyone who wasn't draining German resources by the clever maneuver of surrendering en masse and making the Nazis feed them was vigorously and bravely engaged in the Resistance? Is there a village without its Place de la Resistance? But one has to be fair; one has to understand the Gallic notion of resistance. Any hotelier who overcharged a German was in the Resistance. Each whore who gave a German soldier the clap was a freedom fighter. All those who obeyed while viciously withholding their cheerful morning bonjours were heroes of liberty!"

    alright, so pouting about the germans made them freedom fighters? i think not
  7. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Ha! I use my gun to help eliminate world hunger every fall, at least the local version of world hunger. My family is part of the world, too.

    So they should pay me for my efforts. :neener:
  8. Harold Mayo

    Harold Mayo Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Hutchinson, Kansas
    Hey, George? Where would I go to a protest where I would find protestors like that...?

    On a more serious note, though...why should anyone actually care what the U.N. or any of the individual member nations want? What actualy HELP has the U.N. actually been anywhere?

    A tax to end world hunger? Yeah, that'll work. Try teaching the primitives to NOT overfarm their land. Teach resource conservation. Teach birth control.

    Ah, why do I even post...?
  9. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Winter Haven, FL
    Facetious adj. tongue-in-cheek, unserious, not serious, joking, jesting, joshing, kidding, funny, humorous, comical, jocular, jocose, wagish, witty, droll, whimsical.

    The author is not praising the French.
  10. Bigjake

    Bigjake Member

    May 30, 2003
    North Central Ohio
    my bad. wasn't awake when i read it. that is pretty funny.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page