Should Gun Ownership Be A Global Right?

[Gunny]

I know you said "ignorant hut-dwellers" not impling they were stupid. I also know the difference between both, but thanks just the same.

No offense was intended.

Anyway, I simply pointed out that the Janjaweed recruits largely from the "hut-dwelling" population. Meaning that they are probably cabale although lacking in several areas, IF someone decided it was a good idea to train them, which the Janjaweed has, that's all.

I don't disagree with your assessment.

And again, let me state, I did not say this is the "solution" but is not a terrible idea. On the other hand, I forget if I said give them guns - as in the international community, or they should be allowed to have them for their defense, irregardless of the donar? Either way, I wasn't saying hand them out randomly to anyone who wants one and send them on their way. Probably sounded like that at first, though.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I have no problem with supplying the weapons. My main point is it doesn't just end with dropping off a crate of AK-47's and some ammo.

The logistics and training involved entails hands-on, boots on the ground" trainers. That's if we want to do it responsibly.

I'm just wondering if those who want to drop the crate of rifles are aware of the latter requirement, and are okay with it.

 

[Gunny]

I think my original point has gotten lost, you are addressing a secondary argument made later. IF the citizens are protected by the mere possibility of possessing arms, ala the 2nd amendment, it tends to keep both criminals and government wary of tipping too far. On another thread I believe Mr. P has posted links to the correlations between liberal carrying laws/more draconian gun control laws and the crime rate increase or decrease.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The "ounce of prevention" would be if they had ALREADY owned weapons and knew how to use them. The only thing that's really going to help them now is "the cure." We need to kick some ass .... starting about two years ago.

 

[Gunny]

Listen, whatever you think of it, it's there. We work our way forward, and maybe things will change - for better or worse. In my opinion I seriously think you generally overrate guns. There is a huge black picture that you are painting. Myself - beeing just a good guy - I'm trying to look beyond the barrel of the gun!

I can't say I respect your opnion either... (I really would have liked to) but I only hear you talk about voilence, - and voilence only.
(Is that the effect of 9/11?!? If so, those terrorists have succeeded. There will be no peace in the world if U.S.A. gets isolated or isolates itself - ever) And let me tell you this, I love your country, for many reasons and someday when I'm rich, I'm going to move there.

Well, maybe Kathygun just shoots me on sight.

I agree with your assessment that gun ownership is not a "human right."

HOWEVER, if you want to talk about our "violence," there comes a time when the talkin's done, bubba. It's WAY past that time in Darfur, and when you want to point a finger, try pointing a finger at those who instigate the violence, not us for finally calling "bullshit" and fighting fire with fire.

It is NOT however, the effect of 9/11. It's the righteous indignation of human beings who have watched genocide being committed by a sovereign gov't against its own people and several years worth of talk has accomplished exactly NOTHING.

So no, I wouldn't arbitrarily arm a people not versed in the use of weapons and/or conducting war.

But if up to me, I 'd damned-sure blow the Sudanese Army back to Hell so fast their ancestors would feel it.

 

[Said1]

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I have no problem with supplying the weapons. My main point is it doesn't just end with dropping off a crate of AK-47's and some ammo.

The logistics and training involved entails hands-on, boots on the ground" trainers. That's if we want to do it responsibly.

I'm just wondering if those who want to drop the crate of rifles are aware of the latter requirement, and are okay with it.

I know what you mean, there's no confusion there.

 

[Just a guy]

HOWEVER, if you want to talk about our "violence," there comes a time when the talkin's done, bubba. It's WAY past that time in Darfur, and when you want to point a finger, try pointing a finger at those who instigate the violence, not us for finally calling "bullshit" and fighting fire with fire.
.
.
.
But if up to me, I 'd damned-sure blow the Sudanese Army back to Hell so fast their ancestors would feel it.

I agree with you, you don't have to argue this point. (Not with me, at least)
I'm no pacifist. Violence can be an effective a tool. Sometimes you fight fire with fire, sometimes with water. However, the use of violence should be used with care and expertice (Not talking about self-defence now).

It is NOT however, the effect of 9/11.

This IS interesting (But probably a subject for another thread).

 

[LOki]

Genocide has been carried out with knifes... but wouldn't it be quite fair to divide the world into pieces - like nations, and let the group of people living there decide what sort of guns are appropriate to own?

I like this dividing the world into peices business you suggest, but rather than the put the descisions about individual self defense in the hands of "nations," lets divide the descision appropriately--by individual. Let indiviuals decide what is approriate for their own self defense.

I certainly don't want some nation (even my nation) who controls guns, tanks, howitzers, etc., and liegions of well indoctrinated, highly trained, and unsypmathetic men, deciding for me (a descision, mind you, not made by "the nation," but by some guy in charge) that I can only have a stick or a knife to defend myself with.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

Of couse not. And I am certainly not advocating irresponsible gun ownership.

I have no problem with supplying the weapons.

But I do. I don't think the right to keep and bear arms is equivalent to the right to free guns.

My main point is it doesn't just end with dropping off a crate of AK-47's and some ammo.

I think we agree then.

My point is that cutting off the means to a right is cutting off that right. Just as governments are not obligated to provide the right to self defense (because we, as humans, already have it), they are not obligated to provide the means either--it's not their resposibility.

But governments are responsible for protecting rights, and that makes them obligated to protecting the means to those rights; and if that means is gun ownership (and I am rather certain it is), then governments are obligated to protecting the right to own guns. Governments, groups, or indiviuals prohibiting gun ownership is prohibiting the means to self defense, and is thus a violation of the right to self defense.

I agree with [Just a guy's] assessment that gun ownership is not a "human right."

And I agree with you also, but only on the insignificant technicality that if guns did not exist (for humans to use in the effort to violate the human right to life and/or defend it) then lack of guns would not constitute a violation of anyone's rights. Human existence is not contingent upon gun ownership where guns cannot be used to snuff out the existence of humans, or where guns cannot be used to protect human existence from other threats--that world is just nowhere to be found.

In so far as guns are an effective means (perhaps the most effective means) of defending human life, protecting their ownership is protecting human rights--it makes gun ownership at least equivalent to a human right.

 

[Annie]

The "ounce of prevention" would be if they had ALREADY owned weapons and knew how to use them. The only thing that's really going to help them now is "the cure." We need to kick some ass .... starting about two years ago.

Agreed, that was my original point.

 

[Just a guy]

I like this dividing the world into peices business you suggest, but rather than the put the descisions about individual self defense in the hands of "nations," lets divide the descision appropriately--by individual. Let indiviuals decide what is approriate for their own self defense.

I certainly don't want some nation (even my nation) who controls guns, tanks, howitzers, etc., and liegions of well indoctrinated, highly trained, and unsypmathetic men, deciding for me (a descision, mind you, not made by "the nation," but by some guy in charge) that I can only have a stick or a knife to defend myself with.

How about this:

0
Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
However, we're not quite there yet. Instead we are at...

1
So, people have fears. They want to be able to protect themselves, but they live in a well working democracy where the level of armament can be agreed upon. Thus they avoid any extreems and everyone gets to be fairly satisfied. But all humans are not that fortunate.

2
Here the democracy is not as well functioning. Fractions between the groups has made agreement over aramament can't be made. Now, finding oneself in the controlling group is fairly okay. No need to be afraid. This is a delicate place to be in though. The oppressed portion of the population might try to arm themselves as they please (3). Or (the dilemma of a softening tyrant) if you try to go to 1, the formerly opressed force everyone into...

3
... here everyone arm themselves as they please. Threat to life is imminent and the state is anarchy or civil war. (This state also fits your point of view!). This is an highly unstable place and it won't hold for long. If you are succesful you might get to 2, but if you fail you will be dead or in...

4
No a nice place to be. Just like 2, but you're on the other end of the barrel now. If you find the strength you might get to 3. If offered the possibilty of 2 you might not trust it because of the earlier oppresion. This is also where utterly unhappy people of 1 believe themselves to be in, not trusting their fellow countrymen of selecting the leaders.

 

[5stringJeff]

How about this:

0
Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
However, we're not quite there yet. Instead we are at...

1
So, people have fears. They want to be able to protect themselves, but they live in a well working democracy where the level of armament can be agreed upon. Thus they avoid any extreems and everyone gets to be fairly satisfied. But all humans are not that fortunate.

2
Here the democracy is not as well functioning. Fractions between the groups has made agreement over aramament can't be made. Now, finding oneself in the controlling group is fairly okay. No need to be afraid. This is a delicate place to be in though. The oppressed portion of the population might try to arm themselves as they please (3). Or (the dilemma of a softening tyrant) if you try to go to 1, the formerly opressed force everyone into...

3
... here everyone arm themselves as they please. Threat to life is imminent and the state is anarchy or civil war. (This state also fits your point of view!). This is an highly unstable place and it won't hold for long. If you are succesful you might get to 2, but if you fail you will be dead or in...

4
No a nice place to be. Just like 2, but you're on the other end of the barrel now. If you find the strength you might get to 3. If offered the possibilty of 2 you might not trust it because of the earlier oppresion. This is also where utterly unhappy people of 1 believe themselves to be in, not trusting their fellow countrymen of selecting the leaders.

I think what you're getting at is the lack of rule of law in many places. However, where there is a lack of rule of law, it is all the more important to be able to defend yourself. See New Orleans post-Katrina for examples, where armed citizens defended themselves against looters and mobs.

 

[Just a guy]

I think what you're getting at is the lack of rule of law in many places. However, where there is a lack of rule of law, it is all the more important to be able to defend yourself. See New Orleans post-Katrina for examples, where armed citizens defended themselves against looters and mobs.

Oh, I'm sorry... I was just trying to test this little logical thred of armament on LOki's talent of logical disection.

Most stuff has been said in this thread?

About Katrina, though, it really brought forward the worst and best in people.

 

[Said1]

How about this:

0
Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
However, we're not quite there yet. Instead we are at...

1
So, people have fears. They want to be able to protect themselves, but they live in a well working democracy where the level of armament can be agreed upon. Thus they avoid any extreems and everyone gets to be fairly satisfied. But all humans are not that fortunate.

2
Here the democracy is not as well functioning. Fractions between the groups has made agreement over aramament can't be made. Now, finding oneself in the controlling group is fairly okay. No need to be afraid. This is a delicate place to be in though. The oppressed portion of the population might try to arm themselves as they please (3). Or (the dilemma of a softening tyrant) if you try to go to 1, the formerly opressed force everyone into...

3
... here everyone arm themselves as they please. Threat to life is imminent and the state is anarchy or civil war. (This state also fits your point of view!). This is an highly unstable place and it won't hold for long. If you are succesful you might get to 2, but if you fail you will be dead or in...

4
No a nice place to be. Just like 2, but you're on the other end of the barrel now. If you find the strength you might get to 3. If offered the possibilty of 2 you might not trust it because of the earlier oppresion. This is also where utterly unhappy people of 1 believe themselves to be in, not trusting their fellow countrymen of selecting the leaders.

How about this. If the right to posess guns is an international human right, monitored by a international body, there could be some critea that needs to be met in order for that to happen? I have no idea what, I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[Just a guy]

How about this. If the right to posess guns is an international human right, monitored by a international body, there could be some critea that needs to be met in order for that to happen? I have no idea what, I'm just throwing it out there.

Okay, for arguments sake, lets assume the owning of a gun is a human right. My little reasoning actually led to that conclusion didn't it? How strange. (Anyway I'm probably wrong and I maintain my point of view internally)

An international body watching monitoring that all humans has the desired access to weapons? I don't know... wouldn't that be very complex? But if it could be done, we have probably solved alot of the issues we face on the international playfield...?

Maybe it's it! instead on focusing on other matters, maybe if humanity can agree over guns, then peace and understanding comes as a secondary effect!

 

[Said1]

Okay, for arguments sake, lets assume the owning of a gun is a human right. My little reasoning actually led to that conclusion didn't it? How strange. (Anyway I'm probably wrong and I maintain my point of view internally)

You're missing the point, perhaps a less emotional investment, by you is needed to approach this subject.

An international body watching monitoring that all humans has the desired access to weapons? I don't know... wouldn't that be very complex? But if it could be done, we have probably solved alot of the issues we face on the international playfield...?

I'm not talking about "giving" anyone guns, or making sure everyone has access. The point would is monitering national control of citzens and their global right to posess a gun. I think that's obvious, stop being obtuse. Wow, there are committees devoted to a lot less.

And yes there are a lot of issues, such as countries under arms embargos, if there is such a thing on small fire arms, such as shot guns and hand guns, hence the suggestion of criteria. I'm not claiming that it would work, nor do I have any real suggestions as to what that criteria might be. Is there a nation anywhere that doesn't have civil violence or soverignty issues that isn't allowed to posess some type of small fire arm? Maybe, but I can't think of one.

Maybe it's it! instead on focusing on other matters, maybe if humanity can agree over guns, then peace and understanding comes as a secondary effect!

Yeah. Ok.

 

[Just a guy]

You're missing the point, perhaps a less emotional investment, by you is needed to approach this subject.

Actually I'm pretty cool about this. But if you really question and reavluate your standings you will get confused sometimes. I still don't see owning guns a part of the universal declaration of human rights. But on the other hand that might not be the issue either.

I'm not talking about "giving" anyone guns, or making sure everyone has access. The point would is monitering national control of citzens and their global right to posess a gun. I think that's obvious, stop being obtuse. Wow, there are committees devoted to a lot less.

Okay. But I don't get it. Monitoring all nations control over their citizens and their global right to posess a gun. What is the point of that? Isn't it just to read all nations law texts on the matter? I seriously don't know what you mean. What would you do with this knowlege?

And yes there are a lot of issues, such as countries under arms embargos, if there is such a thing on small fire arms, such as shot guns and hand guns, hence the suggestion of criteria. I'm not claiming that it would work, nor do I have any real suggestions as to what that criteria might be.

Ah, now I get this. You mean that emargos should be lifted on certian sort of guns? That would be doable, I guess?

Is there a nation anywhere that doesn't have civil violence or soverignty issues that isn't allowed to posess some type of small fire arm? Maybe, but I can't think of one.

Here you lost me again. My country doesn't allow you to walk the streets with as much as a swiss army knife in yoor pocket. (Well, it takes alot to be sentenced by the knife-law for that, but technically it could be considered a crime). Guns for sports and hunting are allowed after certification and can't be carried around as a functional unit. The whatever-its-name has to be separated from the rest of the weapon.

 

[LOki]

How about this:

0
Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
However, we're not quite there yet. Instead we are at...

1
So, people have fears. They want to be able to protect themselves, but they live in a well working democracy where the level of armament can be agreed upon. Thus they avoid any extreems and everyone gets to be fairly satisfied. But all humans are not that fortunate.

2
Here the democracy is not as well functioning. Fractions between the groups has made agreement over aramament can't be made. Now, finding oneself in the controlling group is fairly okay. No need to be afraid. This is a delicate place to be in though. The oppressed portion of the population might try to arm themselves as they please (3). Or (the dilemma of a softening tyrant) if you try to go to 1, the formerly opressed force everyone into...

3
... here everyone arm themselves as they please. Threat to life is imminent and the state is anarchy or civil war. (This state also fits your point of view!). This is an highly unstable place and it won't hold for long. If you are succesful you might get to 2, but if you fail you will be dead or in...

4
No a nice place to be. Just like 2, but you're on the other end of the barrel now. If you find the strength you might get to 3. If offered the possibilty of 2 you might not trust it because of the earlier oppresion. This is also where utterly unhappy people of 1 believe themselves to be in, not trusting their fellow countrymen of selecting the leaders.

Nicely constructed strawman.

How about functional equivalent to your paradise: Everyone arms themselves as they please. Everyone treats each other with the respect due to an armed person. Government officials (elected or otherwise) take care to not oppress because the result is likely to be lethal. Other governments carefully consider the lethal ramifications of attacking a country where every man, woman, and child is armed against them. Violence between individuals is non-existent because initiating violence is likey to be lethal, and the odds are not likely to pay off when your victim has the same lethal capacity as you do--and because everyone is armed, there is little doubt as wether or not they possess that capacity.

 

[Just a guy]

Nicely constructed strawman.

How about functional equivalent to your paradise: Everyone arms themselves as they please. Everyone treats each other with the respect due to an armed person. Government officials (elected or otherwise) take care to not oppress because the result is likely to be lethal. Other governments carefully consider the lethal ramifications of attacking a country where every man, woman, and child is armed against them. Violence between individuals is non-existent because initiating violence is likey to be lethal, and the odds are not likely to pay off when your victim has the same lethal capacity as you do--and because everyone is armed, there is little doubt as wether or not they possess that capacity.

In like two days time I have been called a-hole, troll and now a strawman.

Yeah, my theory doesn't hold. But your doesn't either, it is based on the same naive dream as my paradise:
"Everyone treats each other with the respect due to an armed person."Not the rational human behaviour we see everyday now?
"Violence between individuals is non-existent because initiating violence is likey to be lethal"
A troublesome fact about guns is that whoever shoots firt generally gets to clearfy what happened. The dead guy can't. So by shooting first you actually gets safer than not shooting at all.

 

[Said1]

Actually I'm pretty cool about this. But if you really question and reavluate your standings you will get confused sometimes. I still don't see owning guns a part of the universal declaration of human rights. But on the other hand that might not be the issue either

I'm not confused. I think you are. I was under the impresson owning guns being a global right was the issue. I know it was sidestepped a little, for awhile but at this point the thread is on topic.

Okay. But I don't get it. Monitoring all nations control over their citizens and their global right to posess a gun. What is the point of that? Isn't it just to read all nations law texts on the matter? I seriously don't know what you mean. What would you do with this knowlege?

What's the point of having international human rights if there isn't committies and bodies that monitor any given nations complience? Think about it, if gun ownership was a international human right, it would be written in the same document as all the others. Then a monitoring committee would be set up. Not that I think it would be useful or anything, this is purely rhetorical.

Here you lost me again. My country doesn't allow you to walk the streets with as much as a swiss army knife in yoor pocket. (Well, it takes alot to be sentenced by the knife-law for that, but technically it could be considered a crime). Guns for sports and hunting are allowed after certification and can't be carried around as a functional unit. The whatever-its-name has to be separated from the rest of the weapon.

You're still allowed to own a gun, pending permits and stuff. Terms and conditions differ per country, state, province etc. I can't think of any freedom loving nations that doesn't allow citizens some form of gun ownership. Carrying a concealed weapon is one thing, owing one is another. Not so hard, I really don't see how you're unable to keep up.

 

[Gunny]

I like this dividing the world into peices business you suggest, but rather than the put the descisions about individual self defense in the hands of "nations," lets divide the descision appropriately--by individual. Let indiviuals decide what is approriate for their own self defense.

I certainly don't want some nation (even my nation) who controls guns, tanks, howitzers, etc., and liegions of well indoctrinated, highly trained, and unsypmathetic men, deciding for me (a descision, mind you, not made by "the nation," but by some guy in charge) that I can only have a stick or a knife to defend myself with.

Of couse not. And I am certainly not advocating irresponsible gun ownership.

But I do. I don't think the right to keep and bear arms is equivalent to the right to free guns.I think we agree then.

My point is that cutting off the means to a right is cutting off that right. Just as governments are not obligated to provide the right to self defense (because we, as humans, already have it), they are not obligated to provide the means either--it's not their resposibility.

But governments are responsible for protecting rights, and that makes them obligated to protecting the means to those rights; and if that means is gun ownership (and I am rather certain it is), then governments are obligated to protecting the right to own guns. Governments, groups, or indiviuals prohibiting gun ownership is prohibiting the means to self defense, and is thus a violation of the right to self defense.

And I agree with you also, but only on the insignificant technicality that if guns did not exist (for humans to use in the effort to violate the human right to life and/or defend it) then lack of guns would not constitute a violation of anyone's rights. Human existence is not contingent upon gun ownership where guns cannot be used to snuff out the existence of humans, or where guns cannot be used to protect human existence from other threats--that world is just nowhere to be found.

In so far as guns are an effective means (perhaps the most effective means) of defending human life, protecting their ownership is protecting human rights--it makes gun ownership at least equivalent to a human right.

I think we're on the same page, mostly.

I don't think the right to keep and bear arms = the right to free guns either. I think two separate supbjects have been confused with one another throughout this thread, and I am quite sure I have contributed my fair share to the confusion.

That particular comment was made in the context of not having a problem with arming the victims of a genocidal government, so long as we (the average American ostrich) understand BEFOREHAND the logistics involved and that it is NOT just handing out free guns. There's hands-on involvement required, and such involvement incurs risk.

I will also point out that when the US tried to hand out free guns in Vietnam, it was an abysmal failure. The Montangnards and Hmoung warriors aside, the lowland villagers didn't do a very good job of keeping Charlie out no matter how much crap we gave them.

That's not saying S Vietname couldn't be trained to be soldiers. Obviously they could. But there's that key word ...trained.

That is why, IMO, it would probably be more expedient and efficient if we just did the job for them. It isn't that I wish to leave a people defenseless -- it is that I think WE should be defending the defenseless because it is the right thing to do.

On the issue of the 2nd Amendment, I support it wholeheartedly. I do not support it as a universal "right." While I support any law-abiding citizen in the world who wishes to possess a firearm and is willing to learn how to use it in a responsible manner, I do not support dictating to the people of the world what they need to believe where it does not concern the US.

 

[Said1]

At the end of the day, I don't think it would go over well in nations like Canada, where the overall banning of hands guns is being taken seriously.


The UN General Assembly enforcing anything is really funny, but I'll give them an E for putting "issues" on their meeting agendas. Forbidding citizens to own fire arms - through reasonable means, isn't right IMHO, and probably a good indication of where that nations government is going.

 

[Gunny]

At the end of the day, I don't think it would go over well in nations like Canada, where the overall banning of hands guns is being taken seriously.


The UN General Assembly enforcing anything is really funny, but I'll give them an E for putting "issues" on their meeting agendas. Forbidding citizens to own fire arms - through reasonable means, isn't right IMHO, and probably a good indication of where that nations government is going.

The UN is an absolute joke, and embarassment. I'd love to have the power to open those bureaucratic nincompoops' eyes to just what a bunch of fools they are.