UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban
Recently, the United Nations took the next step in negotiating an international arms trade treaty that has the full support of the Obama administration. The goal of this treaty is to impose “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” and ammunition, ostensibly because “too many arms still end up in the wrong hands.”
This high-sounding rhetoric demands further examination, especially since the UN group behind this meeting is called the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations has proclaimed that global civilian disarmament will ensure worldwide peace and prosperity. But to comprehend their attitude towards civilian gun ownership, know that the United Nations believes you have no civil right of self-defense:
Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right.” There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
In other words, if you kill an attacker, you violate their human rights. For now, the UN will let it pass if you can prove you were protecting your life. But this remains a “basis for exemption from criminal responsibility,” which implies that you owe a debt to society. Also, government can revoke this privilege of self-defense at any time.
Curiously, the UN never consults their own research when asking: “Does gun ownership make you less safe?”
In their most extensive effort to date, the Small Arms Survey (SAS) published estimates of civilian firearms inventories for 172 UN member countries (out of a total 192). This organization partners with international civilian disarmament organizations, including the UN, and is decidedly anti-gun:
The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people.
Collating the latest homicide data available from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime with SAS data creates a dataset of 145 UN countries. America, with the most guns per capita (GPC), is tied with Argentina for the 50th highest homicide rate. The graph below highlights the lack of correlation between GPC and homicide rates (all rates in incidents per 100,000 population). Spearman’s value is -0.10: As GPC increases, homicide rates decrease, albeit weakly.
The UN wants us to believe that more guns means more violence. Using homicide as an indicator, UN data derogates this claim.
…..pen.
Yeah. Fixed.
The U.N. isn’t interested in reducing violence, the efforts to disarm private citizens are all about concentrating coercive force in the hands of government.
No doubt there are activists with good intentions but they are only “useful idiots” in the plan to institute global control.
Arguing about statistics is only playing the game by their rules, while the discussion goes on they gain ground.
It is MOLON LABE time, no amount of persuasion will sway the gun banners and the useful idiots don’t matter, no one cares what they think.
Why should we imagine that the UN is asking that question seriously, with a real interest in a factual answer, when making people safe — particularly from the tender mercies of their rulers — has never been part of the United Nations’ motivations?
The UN, be it remembered, is an organization of governments. You and I have no representation there. Therefore, its positions and initiatives will be reflections of the consensus interests of the world’d governments. They’ll be indifferent at best to the desires, fears, and convictions of ordinary people.
When George W. Bush argued against the UN’s anti-gun agenda, on the grounds that “it freezes the last regime in place,” virtually the entire organization rose to condemn him, his position, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Keep that in mind.
All of this is factual. It is also profoundly irrelevant.
The United Nations is an organization composed mostly of thugocracies- governments run by small groups who use force to oppress everybody else. As such, it is no surprise that they “unite” to impose international restrictions that will ensure that their victims remain defenseless against them.
The part I find offensive is that the United States has a group of self-styled “progressives”, mostly found in a single political party, the Democrats, who claim to be for “freedom”, “civil rights”, “individual liberty”, etc., but who nevertheless have done their utmost to strip Americans of the very basic right to protect themselves, which is the right all the others require if they are to continue to exist.
Based on the evidence, I am therefore forced to conclude that the “progressives”, Democrats or otherwise, are also thugs who desire absolute power. And once they achieve it, they will behave no differently than the likes of Syria, the Ivory Coast, Libya, or any other Third World sh!thole run by illiterate psychotics.
While telling us the whole time how “enlightened” they are. (And shooting anybody who dares to disagree.)
This is just one more example of how “progressives”, internationalist or any other sort, invariably Get It Wrong. They worship their dogmas in defiance of all facts, because their dogmas all have the same goal. Power. Nothing else matters. The fact that their grand plans invariably result in the opposite of what they clam to want means that either they are profoundly stupid, arrogant, and delusional, or else they have been lying about what they really want from the beginning. (I call the odds six-five and pick ‘em.)
We don’t need to pull out of the UN. We need the “progressives”, especially those in the Democratic Party, to pull out of the US. And leave peaceful people alone.
Not that they ever will.
clear ether
eon
exactly— who cares what the u.n. thinks
the only perk of the u.n. is getting the ambassador status for parking spaces in nyc
the only thing this proves is that all statists have the same goal
Of course the progressives won’t leave us. Producing nothing of value themselves, they are entirely dependent on the working members of society. They cannot exist without us. However, we can exist just fine without them.
As history teaches us, at no time when the right of the people to protect themselves from thugs or from governments, or for medling globalist bureaucracies, is the noun prosperity ever the resultant outcome.
This is far more than the right of self defense. Its the right of self determination. The UN intends to strip away firearms from the lawabiding to abide the lawless so they can rule with an iron fist.
Interesting data, despite the source. As you write, Mr. Nemerov, the UN is largely a collection of repressive and illegitimate regimes of one stripe or another. So we shouldn’t be surprised that bureaucrats and kleptocrats who represent these organized crime concessions seek to perpetuate their power and control by stifling economic and personal freedom with things like climate change rules and gun bans.
A global public of weak and fearful dependents is far preferable to them than are citizens free to enrich themsleves and live without the interference or extortion of statist parsasites.
Yes, there is no relationship between gun ownership and the homicide rate. The homicide rate (US by state) correlates directly with race. Go run the numbers, I did.
Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Homicide rates correlate with gun ownership, too. States with higher ownership rates and less gun control have lower Black homicide rates. States with the most gun control have lower White homicide rates. You could say that the Brady Campaign is racist and the data would support your point.
Excellent article. It confirms what one suspects anyway.
But it’s not about safety, here in the US or in the UN, it’s about dependency and control.
Its been proved time after time after time, government elimination of guns ALWAYS results in genocide of the helpless.
BOTTOM LINE: Get a gun, get ammo, and get training while you still can. We all have the right to protect ourselves and our family. It appears that we are rapidly approaching the unfortunate point when it will be the people vs the government. The government fears an armed citizenry and therefore will support the UN/Progressive plan to disarm everyone except their military guards . The Second Ammendment stands between you and becomming Yeman.
One trend I notice in the data sets that would strongly correlate AGAINST restricting civilian firearms access.
Homicides committed by the State are not counted into this equation at all.
CHINA has a lower homicide rate than the U.S.? Only if you subtract the A-#1 worst serial killer in that nation state, the Chinese government itself. Even if you exclude people beaten, tortured, worked or starved to death the Chinese government directly murders more people per year than the any other nation on the planet.
It’s like the Nazis crowing about their record of reducing crime since they don’t count the millions of people they are murdering in the Holocaust.
Since the governments involved are, as other readers have pointed out, thugocracies their self-reported murder rates are going to be skewed more than the New York Times coverage of Sarah Palin.
Armed civilians make it more difficult for murderous state-sanctioned killers. NOTHING ELSE DOES.
End of argument. There is no compromise. Guns, in the hands of free people or there will be no free people.
UN thinks its okay for only governments and dictators to have firearms but private citizens and self-defense is too much. The UN makes people less safe.
Im not shocked about the UN. It has always been a haven for dictators, facists, communists and ll around aholes who want to control everyone. The question will be what do we do? Do we sit back and wait for the NRA or some other stupid group to fight for our rights? or do we finally get up off our asses and take our rights.I will never give up my right to bear arms or any other right. We need to quit farting around and let the govt know in no uncertain terms, that if this continues, we WILL have a civil war. We will take up arms and rise against anyone who supports them and we WILL water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. we dont ask for freedom. WE TAKE IT BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NEEDED!
JMZ what we have to do is make it clear to our government that we will kill anyone who attempts to violate the second amendment . We know and so does the government that only purpose of the second amendment is for the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny from their own government . There are milions more armed citizens in this country than there are in our military and if we let them know that we will fight to the death to prevent the loss of the second amendment they’d better back off .
How we prove our unity is by using the 4th of July to hold second and tenth amendment rallys every year where all gun owners bring their long guns without ammo in a peaceful manner to these rallys and demonstrate the numbers and power of the armed citizen . That how we’ll scare them out of any idea of ignoring or infringing on those amendments .
I agree whole-heartedly with most of what you’ve said. However, I just need to point out a flaw in your 4th of July rally idea. I would like you to reconsider your suggestion that Americans gather their guns together at one place and time, without ammo. I can imagine that going very very badly…
no surprise, really, and many have already clearly stated the goals of the UN… and our “government” which marches in lockstep with those perverts, often at the head of the column. In reading a lot from our founding era, I have come to learn that they did NOT provide the Second Ammendment lightly… it was based upon their very recent experience. Remember, it was private citizens bring their OWN weapons as they joined the militia, guarded their own homes, fought off the British tyrants….. and they had already had long experience in using their arms to stave off all manner of other two-legged predators bent upon doing them harm. In fact, the Brits were on a raid of a cache of powder and shot at Barret’s Farm, north of Concord, in a concerted and continuing attempt to disarm the Colonials, on the day that Shot heard Round the World was fired. They gave General Gage a hard lesson. His report to the British Crown was embarrassing….. As that Second Ammendment was drawn up, one of the main reasons given by the very government representatives drafting it was that citizen held arms, and the skill to use them well, was the ONLY real obstacle standing between the people and a tyrannical government. That remains the first and most important reason to retain that Ammendment.And always bear in mind…. that Ammendment does no GIVE us that right… it states we ALREADY HAVE IT, and that it CANNOT be taken, or controlled. This concept our current “adminstration” despises…. they don’t have the spine to rise up and attempt to take it directly, this their cowardly recourse to the UN to do it for them. “It wasn’t US who did it”, I can hear the cowards whining. If that treaty is ever signed by our pretender in chief, and submitted to a vote of the Senate, I hope ten million Americans with spine descend upon Washington DC and TELL those senators anyone who votes in favour of that treaty WILL find himself out of a job next election, if not impeached long before that rolls round again. It will take sixty seven yes votes in the Senate. That means only thirty four have to vote NAY. Will we find them? I can only hope and pray so. Else we truly are lost.
Please friends never never use that expression ” we are lost ” or any other words that imply we would give up before we ran out of arms and ammunition . Some of you might but they are cowards . There are millions like me who will go to war against the government if they ignore the constitution and try to confiscate guns . If they think that disarming people will solve so many problems let them start with the most barbaric and oppressive countrys . After they disarm them and prove that their theory works then we will turn in our guns . That should only take a few thousand years .
I hope ten million Americans with spine descend upon Washington DC and TELL those senators anyone who votes in favour (sic) of that treaty WILL find himself out of a job next election, if not impeached long before that rolls round again.
Right idea, wrong threat. For one thing, Senators cannot be impeached. Recalled, yes, but that’s a very cumbersome process with a very low likelihood of success. (Reason #21,079 to repeal the 17th Amendment.) For another, they figure that once we’re disarmed they won’t have to bother with such niceties as elections.
What needs to be said is “Any senator voting for that treaty will be DEAD within 24 hours.” That is the only threat they will take seriously. At the same time, all ATF and other federal LEOs should be warned that any attempt to enforce such a treaty will result in their deaths as well. This chapter from an online novel (still waiting for the hardcopy or e-book) says it better than I ever could. (All chapters can be accessed here.)
This is serious! That moron/ commie, BO (obama) and his lackey (Hillary) have already agreed to follow what the UN says on this! So the commies are almost have us with a gun at our head (think the killing fields)!
Freedom Lovers, Gun owners, anti Commies join the NRA, Your state Gun assn, and make sure you vote anti Democrat.
Wake up!!! It’s our final hour!!!!!!
The UN as well as the wimpy assed illegal alien, and corrupt courts are all determined to destroy this country. And the liberal/socialist cowardly DNC is just as bad. I personally do not like either party as they are all a bunch of sell out wimps. Remember how the new speaker Boehner cried as told his tale of woe about how hard he worked to get where he is, only now to appear to be selling out to the dem’s. I had had some hope that when he replaced Pelosi he would have some spine, but he is as gutless as a jelly fish, and the dem’s are playing him like a cheap fiddle. I maintain hang onto you guns and stock up on ammo, I am afraid we’re gonna be needing lots of it in the next few months if that long. And in closing, just remember, the politicians are more dangerous than anyone with a gun.
The data rings true, but that has no bearing on what the United Nations wants to do. Our own Constitution protects us from what they want to do.
The trouble is that our current administration does not respect the Constitution. The latest example is participation in the Libyan Civil War
without the approval of Congress even being solicited. The Congress has
the power to make war, not the President, according to the Constitution.
Instead, Obama, on advice from George Soros, invoked the “responsibility to protect” as the reason for war. It violates the Constitution and would seem to be an impeachable offense.
The left wing of the Democratic Party ( includes all the DSA, who owe allegiance to the Socialist International and George Soros )is quite willing to commit any kind of fraud to get around the Constitution, prime examples being the improper vetting of Obama for 2008, and the health care legislation. These are frauds, and what comes next?
That hundreds of millions of people have died from small arms fire, in the last century alone, cannot be refuted. Unfortunately for the U N, most of those deaths were at the hands of armed governments, not armed citizens.
Nonetheless, the UN still wants to take us down the road to civilian disarmament, probably so as not to impede further governmental murder of their own citizens.
And now that we’ve bombed a soveriegn country at the behest of the UN to interfere in an entirely internal affair, the stage is set for the UN to use what ever means it can muster to disarm us. Just as soon as some anti-American politicians sign a UN treaty.
Get us OUT of the UN NOW!
dissarm us so they can control us, not in my lifetime..when all the politicians get rid of their armed to the teeth bodygaurds i might think about it..plus criminals and dictators will never comply and neither should we..FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS HOT EMPTY AND SMOKEING..IMPEACH OBUMASS NOW…
I think you’re forgetting something very significant here, what’s your R^2, or R-bar^2, all your other regressions results, while I think the regressions are interesting I have trouble trusting most of them because most of them loos statistically insignificant
I notice that when it comes to statistics, one can always say ‘yeah but’ and they do with great regularity. The goal is to nay-say what they don’t want to believe. But the most important point here is that if the UN rhetoric had anything to do with reality, these trend lines and correlations would be very different than they are!
One more piece of data that confirms why we should get out of the UN!
Time to pull the plug and end our funding and start a new organization of only highly-free, capitalistic, representative governments (e.g. U.S. and most of Europe, Israel, Australia, some in S.A., and a few others). Dump the “Crapistans” of the world, the Middle East theocracies, all of the communist countries and make it US versus THEM. When these free nations speak, we will speak with moral authority because our people are not slaves/victims of their government.
For instance, Syria on the Human Rights Commission; WTF!
Has anyone read “Term Limits” by Vince Flynnn? You should. Food for thought. Could this be our future?
The rights to life, liberty, and property are mine. The constitution does not grant them, it acknowledges them, and promises the government here will not interfere with them. Bad job, lately. The right to self defense is derivative of those rights. I assert that right for myself, whether the bureaucrats, thugs or whatever choose to protect or even recognize that right. My proliferation of arms threatens only those who would try to violate my rights, including bureaucrats, thugs or whatever. Let’s see which we run out of first: bullets or bureaucrats. I have a lot of bullets.
Ye can send your blue helmets to collect me guns, I’ll use the helmets for flower pots and the holes in them will make the water drain quite nicely!
Gee a bunch of lying Marxists are lying about gun control…. Go figure!
do a search on the terms orwells boot. I am usually Number 1. ON google I may be as low as 5 or 6, but today, April 4, I am number 2 out of over 2 million. Look for factotum666 6000 words, so not for those with a short attention span.
Good article Mr. Nemerov. By the way, I linked to this article a couple of days ago, but don’t see the trackback. Here’s the link; http://wp.me/pTkxi-vG
Perhaps I had a brain fart and didn’t link it right.
I don’t control the trackback system and haven’t a clue as to how it works. Sorry about that.
Funny thing about progressive thinkers, they say they want a gun free enviroment for your safety. What that means in lib-speak is, “I don’t trust you and if anyone is going to have a monoploy on guns its gunna be me.” Because what is there to fear from an honest law-abiding citizen?
I also luv that line that they consider it ‘against the law’ for you to protect your own life…uh, whose law? Natural Law? God’s Law? No, their made up law where they can kill you if you say something bad about them but can’t lift a finger if someone is doing ‘bad-things’ to you or your family.
Cooruption needs power to remain in power – having all the guns is having all the power. But in the absence of cooruption there has to be truth and truth needs nothing as its a power inandofitself.
What they say:
“Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations has proclaimed that global civilian disarmament will ensure worldwide peace and prosperity.”
What they mean:
“Too many Armed Citizens hinders our ability to enslave the masses and transform them into docile workers.”
The UN is an evil organization, the only purtpose of which is that it makes it easier to keep track of the evil since it is out in the open.
I know that the President is cuddled up with these thugs and apparently cares more about how they feel than his own citizens. My biggest worry is the Senate that will have to ratify the treaty. As many pointed out, it will be a cold day in hell before I give up my firearms, will train any and all who want it, and fight to defend the Constitution and this Nation.
Afterall, I guarentee you 100% if you went into Afghanistan or Iraq and tried to disarm them, they would do the same thing. None of them would give up their arms, and trust me as a guy on the ground…GIRoA doesnt even approach the subject with the citizens of Afghanistan, because it is so unrealistic.
Howard,
In your “Gifford” post back in January, you gave the Australian sex assault / rape rate as 3 times US and the UK as twice US.
What was your source for those please?
Just getting into your work, excellent stuff
Thanks