The effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.

Que

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
34
Location
I live in a home like most people
Hi everyone, I know we got off on the wrong foot, I hope that has now all been resolved :)

I am really looking for information on this topic...

"The effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons"

There is a stat stating that there are one in three people worldwide affected by gun crime (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/controlarms.shtml) if this is extrapolated... (there are currently 6,525,170,264 people in the world, courtesy of CIA - https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html). If the stat is right, that means there are about 2billion plus people affected EVERYDAY with gun crime. That canot be true... as there are already more than 3 people on my street and I am almost certain that none of them have been affected by gun crime today.

If any stats can be given regards illegal weapons (no matter if different totals - the greater the better it is).

I look forward to replies...

Thank you
Que

EDIT: Please see this post - http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3164787&postcount=196
 
Last edited:
Re-Post

Normally, I do not re-post what I've written somewhere else. However, in this context, I feel that to simply link to it will break the flow. Therefore, with my apologies, I'm re-posting this (#204 from MADE for killing):

There is a fundamental problem with the premise that legislation solves anything.

Legislation solves nothing. Really.

You can't solve rudeness by making a law that people must be polite.

You can't prevent sex by outlawing sex. People are going to do it. All you will change is when and where and under what conditions.

You can't prevent drinking by outlawing alcohol. You CAN, and they DID, but it didn't work. People are going to drink. All that changes is the source and the venue and the companionship.

You can't prevent murder by outlawing murder. Murder is going to happen anyway. For what it's worth, murder has nearly always been unlawful. What changes over time is the definition of murder and the tools used for it, depending on who's in charge and the culture they've created.

People have been killing each other for all of creation. Even during the most recent "civilized" periods of man, killing one another is so common and ordinary that it's become a cliche. You almost can't write a book or produce a movie without killing as part of the plot.

Sam Colt, those who went before him, and those who have come later, did something unique in human history: he made the weak equal to the strong.

The tradition throughout history is that the strong control and dictate to the weak. With the advent of the personal firearm, the first true equality of force in history was achieved.

The bullies have never been able to accept this. The bullies want control back. The bullies can't extort and steal and control and intimidate if their victims have the ability to fight back with equal force.

Socialism.

Socialism is a utopian-sounding ideology that visits brutality on a population to guarantee equal outcomes regardless of ability (which is seldom equal). It requires force to steal from the able and distribute the wealth they create to those who can't or won't. Socialism, while sounding "ideal" and "fair" for everyone, cannot succeed without forcible confiscation. The most able are punished and the least able rewarded. It is, without doubt, one of the sickest political/economic systems ever cooked up.

It is one of the more popular forms of tyranny.

It is the politics of bullies.

Bullies don't want the masses to have the means to protect their persons or property. Guns make it possible for people to protect what is theirs. Therefore, guns have to go.

Bullies are not necessarily stupid. It isn't a real stretch for them to grasp that you can't TELL people why you're disarming them. Therefore you need a subterfuge of some kind.

Crime.

Everybody can agree that crime is bad. If you can convince them that somehow GUNS are CRIME, then you can get the guns.

All you have to do then is keep redefining what "crime" is, until the very ownership of a gun, at all, is a crime.

Now you have disarmed the population. You have reduced them to committing their crimes with knives, swords, bricks, fire, rope, broken glass, bow & arrow, and other low-tech implements. You have NOT eliminated crime.

You HAVE, however, created a disparity of force, so that when YOUR goons and thugs show up to enforce YOUR laws and decrees, the population will not have any effective means of fighting your tyranny.

If there is one thing that has become clear over the last several decades, it is that gun control is murder.

One population after another has been disarmed and systematically exterminated.

Crime has never been solved by gun control. All you get when you remove guns is crime that is committed with different tools, and a whole set of demographics now unable to defend themselves against bullies and predators. This is not progress.

More gun legislation is not only NOT the answer, it is a COMPLETELY WRONG answer.

The "illegal trafficking" to which you refer only occurs because some thug decided to restrict access to the only effective means of self defense. The NEED for self defense doesn't go away, and the DESIRE to commit crimes doesn't go away, and *presto* you have a black market.

Guns are here to stay. There is no rationally supportable way to eliminate them.

Let's turn our attention instead to criminals. We've always had those. We've always had laws against what they do. We've always had penalties for those crimes.

What's new is this: the concept that the criminal is not really at fault, and shouldn't really be punished, because that would be cruel. So we let them back out on the street, and pretend that we have to restrict access to self defense tools because bad people (whom we've let out onto the streets) might get them.

And, since we can't be sure who's bad, we have to treat everyone as though he is or could be a criminal, until he can prove otherwise, before we allow him to exercise a guaranteed right to own arms.

There's your real insanity: let bad people back out into the general population, don't keep track of them, and instead make everyone else prove he's NOT a criminal.

The answer is just about too simple to be expressed: a) anyone you allow to walk the streets can be trusted to own a gun, b) anyone you can't trust to own a gun doesn't walk the streets.

Guns are not crime. Guns are not bad.

Guns are the only effective way honest people can protect themselves from otherwise stronger predators.

Criminals are bad. Your choices are these: a) fix the criminal so you can trust him, b) kill the criminal so he's no longer a problem, c) house and feed and care for the criminal until he dies.

It only becomes completely crazy when you try (d) and just let someone you know is bad loose into society.

Guns aren't the problem.

Bullies and tyrants are the problem.

Solve the right problem.
 
Last edited:
Que,

Do some reading and research on these forums and I think you'll see that the anti's arguments are based on lies. And statistics are a really easy way to lie and make it sound like the truth. Don't believe me, take a college level course in statistics.

And your statement:
If the stat is right, that means there are about 2 billion plus people affected EVERYDAY with gun crime
Is not what the article said:
30% have been the victim of gun crime or know someone who has been in the last five years
 
The Stats Headline...

The headline said one in three people across the world are affected everyday by gun crime.

Based on this, and that there are 6.5 billion people in the world, that would mean about 2billion are affected. Thus it cannot be true. Furthermore, I know that stats can be used to prove almost anything you want them to do... for example, you wish to count cars... based on sets of ten. You count and as you are counting, the trans am club drives by... and the first 10 cars are trans am, thus, so far, 100% of the cars are trans am. So the next set of ten are counted, and you get volkwagon, volvo, saab, firebird, oldsmobile, jaguar, corvette, nissan, ford, renault. So now there are no trans am, so technically, there are no trans ams, but take the two together, and a different picture is shown.

This I understood... and it mentioned 6 countries, and there 192 countries in the world, so it is already inaccurate.

Thank you for your input :)
 
legislation alone, solves nothing

I agree, its in the heart of man to commit crime... and until that changes legislation will not instill morality or ethics or politeness... or anything... and that legislation only serve to keep the honest and upright, honest and upright.

When I said about global gun control, there is a UN resolution (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/dc3036.doc.htm) that has some legally binding content... but as we all know, the UN has no teeth.

You wrote:
Legislation solves nothing. Really.

I would go further, and say that in some cases, legislation increases crime and problems, but I do not believe that this is always the case. The issue with any legislation, is enforcement and along with that is the lack of manpower...

I also understand that there are many other weapons... many. My focus is on small arms and light weapons (of which there are a number problems in the definition of this across the globe). I cannot focus on other weapons, as the topic becomes too broad, and analysis then goes to pot.

You wrote:
Guns aren't the problem. Bullies and tyrants are the problem. Solve the right problem.

This is very true... the right problem needs solving... but its easy to say, but certainly not easy to do. It involves global education for a start - and this has its own problems. Besides, deep in the heart of man, dwells the desire to do good or evil... and therein lies the problem... that will never solved.
 
Blush

Shucks, guys.

I remarked that post (in the other thread) to my wife, who immediately grabbed it for her blog.

* Sigh *

If I'm gonna be famous, can I be rich, too?

Seriously, thanx for the encouragement. The usual "please feel free to copy as needed" applies. If it helps the cause, I'm all for it.

I'm still working on my "grass is greener" essay.

Maybe tomorrow.
 
Well internationally I always thought the UN Small Arms Treaty that specifies that guns can only be sold to 'legitimate' governments is just another way to help dictators and tyrants keep their thumb on people. Another kumbaya kludge presented as a reason path to peace that is not intented for that at all.
 
Misquote

If there is one thing that has become clear over the last several decades, it is that gun control is murder.

This is based on the gunfacts.info 84 page leaflet... and that those stats show is that tyranny is murder not gun crime.

The stats are being used incorrectly.
 
The uns reason for gun control is to disarm the populace. They do not care how many governments murder their own people. The un wants to disarm the people, all people, because the only way to rule an armed man is by his personal choice.
 
Que

If there is one thing that has become clear over the last several decades, it is that gun control is murder.

This is based on the gunfacts.info 84 page leaflet... and that those stats show is that tyranny is murder not gun crime.

Actually, no, not based on a leaflet.

Based entirely on observations over a number of years, and direct reasoning.

And, if you were attempting to quote me ("gun crime") then you got it wrong. If you weren't trying to quote me, what's "tyranny is murder not gun crime" doing in there at all.

It's not hard.

Gun control disarms people so they can't defend themselves. Gun control doesn't disarm the murderers.

Disarmed people are murdered because they can't defend themselves -- they're not armed.

Gun control is murder.

That's a freebie. There's no extra charge.
 
Arfin
Have you considered being on the board of the NRA? Would you consider it?
Of perhaps gracing society in other venues such as the print media with your ability to write.

Your post at the beginning of this thread is one of the most cogent, accurate and rational explanations of what gun control and the evil it stands for is. A lot of people who sit on the fence, who truly want to know what the right choice is, not just the convenient choice could benefit from the clarity of insight shown by your explanation. In order to protect our rights we must expound adequately on our reasons for fighting for them. Your explanation is excellent "ammunition" in that fight.
 
This is based on the gunfacts.info 84 page leaflet... and that those stats show is that tyranny is murder not gun crime.
Que - this is one of those "If A=B and B=C, then A=C" kind of problems. You simply have to be willing to connect the dots.

A: The tyrannical state disarms me and removes from my possession the tools that I might use to defend myself
B: Someone attacks me and because I'm smaller/weaker/slower and lack tools to otherwise level the playing field I wind up dead
C: The state (indirectly but clearly) murdered me via its policies of individual disarmament.

That's the point of all that. Disarming the populace is a sign of a tyrannical regime, since it renders the populace subordinate to the regime.

The headline said one in three people across the world are affected everyday by gun crime.
In what way? They knew someone who committed suicide and chose to use a firearm instead of crashing their car into someone else? Their sister was raped at gunpoint because she lacked the tools to defend herself against an aggressor?

Statistics without context are worthless.
 
Statistics without context are worthless.

I don't know about that.... seems the antis have been beating us about the head and shoulders for years with "statistics without context". Along with plenty of other useless trivia that means nothing in the real world but sounds great on the 5 o clock news in a sound bite.
 
Connecting the dots

this is one of those "If A=B and B=C, then A=C" kind of problems. You simply have to be willing to connect the dots.

This argument is a syllogistic argument, and as such is fallible logic. For instance, given the following parameters: If A = B, B = C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore A = C. However, this does not follow (for instance: cats (A) are black (B), and black things (B) are televisions (C), it is false that cats (A) are televisions (C)).

Hence, the syllogistic argument is irrelevant.
 
Willful Misunderstanding

Que, you seem committed to a failure in reasoning.

It seems you have adopted a fixed idea and are looking for evidence to support it.

You present a distorted syllogism in order to assert that a syllogism is a bad idea.

If you are stuck with a fixed idea, no amount of inductive or deductive reasoning is going to help. No amount of simile or metaphor is going to help.

No amount of taking guns away from good people is ever going to fix what bad people do.

Your "no arms" Utopia isn't possible.

Your "no, no, I really want to understand" mantra, while continuing to miss the point at all turns, makes me wonder if this is less about understanding and more about causing helpful people to waste their time in what will ultimately be found a hopeless endeavor leading to frustration and apathy among those attempting to provide enlightenment.

Your title premise is fundamentally flawed. "Illegal trade" is defined as illegal by whoever is making the rules. It's illegal to trade in anything that's illegal to own. Ask the users of medicinal "pot" in Californina. State says it's okay. Feds say it's not. Feds arrest people for doing something the state says is okay. The act is the same. All that's different is the rule and who's enforcing it.

"International efforts to curb" posits the existence of an "authority" having jurisdiction over the "legality" of conduct within a distinct sovereign nation.

Finally, no address is made to the existence of nations whose publicly stated policy is the overthrow and annexation of the United States. We don't care about that, but we "need" to disarm the population.

Rather than chase this butterfly, I believe I'll direct my efforts at some more productive projects I have going just now.

I'll watch from time to time to see if there's any real change in your behavior.

Bye for now.
 
For instance, given the following parameters: If A = B, B = C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore A = C. However, this does not follow (for instance: cats (A) are black (B), and black things (B) are televisions (C), it is false that cats (A) are televisions (C)).
It is a pure and simple truth that if A=B and B=C then A MUST equal C. That's the simple defintion of EQUALS, dude. The only time that relationship breaks down is when it is PRESUMED that one set of relationships exists in equality when in fact they do not (the syllogistic argument).

It is insufficient in rational debate to simply claim an argument to be syllogistic in nature - you also have the burden of expressed how/why the relationships are not equal. So do me a favor - go back to my premise and EXPLAIN, rather than dismiss, how one or more of the equality relationships I suggested are in fact not equal.

Barring that, you're just a troll looking for fodder and I'm done with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top