UESP Forums

On July 27th, the UN is set to vote on--and potentially ratify--a treaty that would make purchase/trade of small arms globally illegal. Given the UN's recent ineptness, I seriously doubt the potency of any implementation of this potential treaty, but nonetheless: do you think it should be enforced in countries that guarantee their citizens the right to own personal small arms--does the sovereignty of nations outweigh the agreement of the majority of other nations, or does the international committee have open right to dictate domestic laws/rights of individual nations?

My stance is that international trade between private parties should be banned, or at least severely restricted/overseen, but internal/domestic trade should not be affected in the slightest. The treaty's official purpose is to cut-down the violence spurned-on by the ease of access to weapons by private international dealers, but the language of it could very well intend to implement the policy on other nations' domestic policies as well.



Note, with due diligence, that this isn't a [&@%!] US vs the World thread. I'm pretty sure I've heard of other nations, besides the US, granting their citizens the right to own firearms. If this turns into another US-bashing thread, without any due cause, I will request to have this thread locked. Act like [&@%!] grown-ups; discuss the topic, not your bigotry towards a specific country/state. Thank you.

Yeah, I don't see this happening either. Just watch, in a few months, no one will even care about this decision, by that time we'll have a new legislature to vote on.

The US can always veto, I'm sure. In fact every Perma-Member can veto the hell out of the bill. They each have huge trades selling weapons. Unless I severely misunderstand how the UN works, I do believe China, the UK, the US, Russia, etc. will not allow it to go very far.

This doesnt stand a chance , the UN never manages anything .

I believe what doomed this treaty was allowing Iran to be one of the head drafters of the treaty. The UN claims their role has no bite, but if anything, the UN was the one that got a bite; right in the butt.

Iran itself is traded arms to by several UN member states. This thing was doomed from the very beginning, I think.

A blade is just as deadly as a knife. A criminal willing to use a gun on you, will be just as willing to stab you. Not much would change other than range.

Range can be the difference between life and death. For example when England manufactured the Longbow for our troops back in the day, we were literally unstoppable till others caught up technology wise.

Your bowmen fought in open fields of battle.

Criminals ambush you in alleyways and ask you to give them your wallet.

Tell me, would a gun really make a difference if you refuse and the criminal decides to get violent?

Like I said, I can at least try and run away from someone wielding a knife... if someone points a gun at you you're screwed.

Not all muggers will attack you from behind after all, I know this from personal experience. What I'm saying is, knives are much safer then guns.

They are quieter. The criminal can just walk up, stab you, and walk away. Knives are also easier to acquire. Everyone has one.

Yes, but that's if the criminal actually intends to kill you in the first place... most would not do that. Besides, since I was replying to Scozzars 'everyone should have a gun' statement... kinda makes the the last bit redundant.

You would get a lot more accidental killings and wounding with guns, all it takes is some nervous wreck to pull that trigger if they get spooked or squeeze to hard.

Besides, knives are impossible to get rid of due to the countless things they can be used for. Guns are an unnecessary evil that only have one use... to make something bleed.

Anyway, let's not go into a huge debate on what is more effective.

My point is, the crime rate for gun violence will drop, but the crime rate with knives will skyrocket. The overall crime rate would then even out and not make much of a difference.

Note: The US president cannot legally issue a ban on personal small arms through international treaty. The Supreme Court made a ruling that states the US Constitution supersedes ALL international agreements. Not to mention, any treaty has to be ratified by the Congress. Not only would such a treaty be ineffective on an international level, but nationally here in the states, it would be political suicide to support it.

Two very important things law enforcement has learned over the years:

1) If criminals want guns, they'll somehow find them, especially in a country as large as the US. This means that banning gun ownership would essentially strip guns merely from law abiding citizens, defeating the purpose of banning their sale.

2) 9/10 times, any cop will tell you they'd much rather face a gun than a knife. Cops are always within 20ft of most civilians they're dealing with, and it's been proven that an expert bladesman needs only 40ft of distance to kill anyone not immediately prepared for an assault. Blades also cause an extreme, massive amount of damage to the body; a blade can slice the entire torso or rip the body open completely, making bleedout extremely likely, while even the larger calibers from small arms leave a relatively small puncture wound. Most average criminals also don't quite know how to handle a firearm, making their accuracy all the worse at distance.

Another point:

A gun must be reloaded. A knife has no such weakness.

Depending on rate of fire, in ten seconds you would be out of ammo and reloading. Ten seconds with a knife, the attacker will have stabbed you dozens of times and can keep going.

I own 2 rifles and a pistol. My father owns 3 rifles, my brother one...

And I plan to buy a glance new Mauser rifle next year.

I wonder how would one hunt those 120 wild boars planned by the statal agency and passed onto my association which turns in around 430 wild boars every year in my region alone. Animals who make around 700.000 eur of damage on agriculture alone every year. Ban the guns and you will severly dent the numbers of those few hunters who are all volouteers and help a lot the state when comes to animal population control, and thus damage control.

I agree that the small arms market should be monitored closely and be very strict when comes to norms and licenses but to potenitally disarm the civilian population, a long term goal, would be very contraproductive I say. First guns will be still aviable and illecit, thus hard to monitor, second the majority of activities related to guns will die out, and thus reduce the economic potential of this sector where thousands of people work and for end consider the sudden uprise in crime and illecit markets.

I dont defend guns but I see them as a necessary tool, wheter we like it or not. I am contrary to the amercan way of dealing with weapons (easy to buy, very common and ... well you get the idea) but I consider to not have weapons at all aviable to the civilians a big mistake. I belive that laws similar to the european ones should be passed instead. With very strict and severe normatives (including a psi test every five years, a medical check every two...) and so on to limit the number of people possessing a gun and keep the gun owners under strict and constant control.

I had over seven months of test to get the hunting licence and over two years of apprenticeship in my hunitng association before I was able to obtain a hunting and gun possession licence. So roughly two years of constant training, study and checks in order to have a weapon troughout which you have a fixed number of weapon tests to pass and hunting tests to give.

As far as I am concerned, on matters such as these, it is down to the individual countries themselves to decide their own firearms laws. There are certain issues that I believe can and should be dealt with by multinational agreements/treaties, but small arms laws are not one of said issues. International arms trading can be dictated by the UN, but not...intranational trade.

Because the UN is always listened to? Regardless, this won't be passed. The U.S, along with China, Russia, and quite a few other states, sit on a pedestal, with a permanent veto. I have no doubt it'll be exercised.

Indeed, but it's passability and Enforcability are not under consideration in this thread.

It's perfectly relevant. This isn't going to pass, because people don't want it to pass. That's how the U.N (is supposed to at least) works. If the majority of U.N members vote in favor of it passing, then those states who join the U.N should be under obligation to carry out the treaty. Regardless of whether I like what the treaty is, it's called democracy.

I see what you mean. Fair enough.

It is not.