Talk:Small arms proliferation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] US Bias

This whole debate about civilians having the rights to bear weapons is completely US-centered. The fact that arguments against small arms control (ie: FOR the widespread use of firearms) are given as much importance as the arguments for it is a clear American bias. But we are here dealing with an international issue so I suggest to modify the article so as to balance it in a way that reflect the current state of the issue (which is that basically no non-American civil group actually advocates the widespread use of small arms around the world -- only arms sellers do). JB 07/23/07

Hate to burst your bubble, bud, but there are folk who don't like attempting to disarm the law-abiding in other countries, too. There's an NRA of the United Kingdom, Switzerland has 420,000 assault rifles sitting in normal homes, Canada's version is the NFA, and even parts of Africa have pro-gun movements. Jani Allan is a lotta things, but an arms seller isn't one of them. Americans may well be the most armed civilians, but we're certainly not the only ones.
It's a pretty simple metric -- it's remarkably hard to commit genocide against a populace legally armed with firearms. In fact, it hasn't happened yet; whether that's because it's impossible or just that no one's been stupid enough to try. Meanwhile, as the Tutsi of Rwanda found out, it's remarkably easy to commit genocide without firearms when the victims are disarmed as well.
As to the article, it really does need cleanup, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to do so. Can someone at least explain why the "Gun Rights Issues" section spends time on 'cycle of violence' stuff? - Gattsuru 09/11/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.196.180 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Different Perspective

I'd like to make the following point: it is said that small arms must be restricted in conflict zones. To me this makes no sense, and will not work. here is why:

Take africa. In most conflict areas, you have Warlords terrorizing a largely disarmed population. No Warlord could get very far if every time he tried to massacre a village, he was greeted by the entire village armed with AK-47's!

To think that you can somehow only disarm the Warlords is at best naive. Most of the Hutu-Tutsie massacres have been done with Machetes. People with the inclination to be thugs, like african warlords, will always find a way to arm themselves. It is only by giving the general population the tools to defend themselves, that the so-called "conflict" will be eradicated.

Dullfig 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To think that you can somehow evenly distribute arms to whole populations is even more naive. Weapons accrete in the hands of a relatively small number of people (i.e. those that already have them), leading to the rise of warlordism and organized banditry. Afghanistan has been awash in small arms since the mid-1980's. AK-47s were available in Kabul street markets for a pittance. Yet that didn't prevent the rise of regional warlords who robbed the Afghan population on a daily basis, nor did it prevent the rise of the Taliban.
Contemporary Iraq is another example. Many, if not most, Iraqi citizens now own a firearm for protection. This has not prevented sectarian death squads from going about their business, or random civilians from being stopped, pulled out of their cars, and gunned down on the side of the road. Rpine75 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Gun Owners's Groups

Please can you reference which 'international gun owners's groups said this, and on what basis? Thank you, Mark Richards 22:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Unless there are some references provided for these comments, I'll remove them next week. Thanks, Mark Richards 08:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Removed this paragraph - am happy for it to go back if and when it is referenced (who said it, which organizations, which report gives these figures?) Thanks, Mark Richards 06:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The gun owners organisations view

International gun owners associations claim that the small arms problem does not arrise from privately owned pistols, revolvers, hunting and precision rifles, but mainly from the military type small arms like assault rifles, mortars and grenades. They claim that the verifiable number of small arms victims is closer to 130,000 per annum. Thus gun owner organisations have been protesting against UN attempts to include such firearms into UN anti proliferation measures. This same view is being held by the US Government which has vetoed attempts to include these into UN measures.

Here is a link: http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

Do a search on the NRA site for United Nations related material, there is a lot of stuff.

Must read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073001.shtml This document slams the UN numbers.


Ok, now provide some evidence on the 500'000 victims Mr. Richards.... you can't... the UN can't... no one can it is a phoney number.

You see. Thus both views must be given. Not just one. If you don't like small arms, that does not mean that you have to imposse your view on everyone. Plus the UN is supposed to curb the illegal trade in military small arms, not private small arms, Oxfam is trying to push their anti-gun agenda which has nothing to do with that.

Regards, Meswiss

I am happy for it to remain, if you mention which international gun owner's associations. The NRA is the National Rifle Association. If you know of any international ones, then reffer to them, otherwise, remove them. The content you have got there is just not relevant to the points made, and unnecessarily drag US gun politics into an issue unrelated to them. Please reference the figures and opinions - who is responsible for those surveys you mention? I don't feel the need to justify the UN figures, the article merely reports that that is what the UN says. If you want to put in what some international gun club has to say on the matter, please specify which one, and where. Thanks, Mark Richards 19:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, the NRA is an international gun owners organisation. They have many many members that are not US citizens and that live outside the US. This opinion, that the NRA is a pure US pro-gun movement is typical of gun ownership opponents. Because of its sheer size, the NRA has become the defacto internationnal gun owners organisation. All the other gun owner organisations do work with the NRA to some extend. I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do with US gun politics, if you knew the subject you would know what that is about (concealed carry laws, AWB, protection for firearms manufacturers, etc). The position that small civilian small arms which the UN wishes to intermix with military ones, do not pose a threat to the world and thus should not be overregulated is supported by all gun owner associations, be it ProTell, COLFO or others. Considering everything, the way this page related to UN claims, and what their opponents claim is a fair view of the matter. It should remain this way. Otherwise, maybe one should also remove what the UN claims on this matter, cause it's Junkscience. Regards, Meswiss.

Made some copyedits on the basis of your comment here, could you please mention who published and commissioned this sudy?

This view is supported by the 2001,2002,2003 Small Arms Surveys which point out that almost all small arms killing of civilians is perpetrated by organized crime, pirates/bandits and rebel groups and that these guns represent only 2/10 of a percent off the worlds small arms. You can mention accusations of the UN survey being suspect, if you can specify who said it and on what basis, otherwise, it's just more of your speculation. Mark Richards 16:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

a) The Small Arms Survey is a UN sponsored study, so that stuff is going right back there. Have you read it, I actually read all their online material to get confirmation on what you call a NRA claim. Here is the link http://www.smallarmssurvey.org b) I have plenty of printed stuff on the the subject that is not from the NRA, so your twist that only the NRA is supporting this view is going right out. If I could, I would put it up, believe me. c) You seem to behave like a typical anti-gunner, when facts don't match illusions or a political agenda, then the're ignored.

So get sensible. I am not cutting out the 500'000 UN claim either.

Regards, Meswiss

Your wild accusations are unhelpful, I am not suggesting you remove anything, but rather reference it. The only thing I object to is vague, unreferenced statements about what unspecified 'international gun owners groups' think, without any supporting evidence. Mark Richards 22:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, my claim is referenced and backed up by UN data. What about yours ? Regards, Meswiss.

It is not my opinion or my claim. I have referenced whose opinion it is in the article. You have not, that is why those items must go, nothing else. Mark Richards 07:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I also referenced my points Mr Richards. You are just not reading the links I attached. Regards, MeSwiss. No, come up with the evidence on the 500'000 victims Mr. Richards. Provide a reference that confirms that number!

You completely miss the point. I am not saying that it is true, simply reporting which organizations say it, and where. That is what you are not doing, and the reason why I oppose what you are doing. Mark Richards 07:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Richards, you are missing the point. Should we continue this copy/paste contest or do we compromisse and let both views stand.

I don't think that you understand what I am saying at all. If you think there are organizations that say the things you claim, why are you not willing to mention which ones, and when they said it? That is all I am asking. Without that, it is just your speculation as to the opinions of these unspecified 'groups'. Mark Richards 07:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did provide links to the organisations who said that, ProTell, COLFO, NRA, OurNation all have made the same comments. Simply, not everything can be referenced on the web. Like for your 500'000 victims claim, there is also no link to any evidence that backs up this claim. So, unless we compromisse both, we're not going anywhere. MeSwiss.

I'm not talking about external links to gun clubs, I'm talking about attributing the claims made in the text to a specific organization, in the text. I did this with all of the figures. I do not claim that there is any evidence for the 500,000 figue, the only claim in the article is that the UN claimed it. Who claimed the figures you want to put in? When and where? That's all I need to agree that it can go in. Mark Richards 07:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One more thing. When I added names to the bad guys that sell military small arms left and right, that did not seem to borther you. Maybe you should realize that I also favor the control of military small arms. MeSwiss.

I have not claimed that these are bad, and if you want to remove them while you look for evidence of these sales that's fine by me. At least you are specific about the claim you are making there. Your reluctance to name the organization who makes these claims is what worries me. Mark Richards 07:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I can name the gun owner organizations by name. MeSwiss

Great, that, and what exactly they said, and it's fine by me. Mark Richards 07:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we put a footnote on that page that states that more information will be added and that the page is not final. MeSwiss.

Why don't we agree on future changes here first. I am all in favor of information that provides both points of view, I just hate it when I am told only one side of the story. what do you think Mr. Richards ?

I find it frustrating when I don't know who is telling it. I cleaned your edit up a bit, and removed the survey data (it's above) - without knowing who carried out this survery, or where, it's impossible to know what to do with it.
You seem to be trying to characterise me as trying to keep information out, on the contrary, I am simply trying to make sure it is referenced properly, and that statements are properly attributed to the correct groups. You still have not given references to any specifics. Mark Richards 07:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added the link to the Small Arms Survey, if you vist their website, you will see that they do this for the UN. What you are doing there is not right, cause that survey is one of the few documents that is considered as somewhat fair by both sides. Why don't you read the survey ? Anyways... I am not going to put it back right now. You can read about that document in the above links I gave you and you can read the S.A.S. yourself. MeSwiss.

You misunderstand again, I don't want to remove the survey, but, where we mention it, I want to explain what it is and where readers can see a copy. My agenda is not to remove material, but to reference it properly and no make vahue claims about unspecified 'groups'. Mark Richards 19:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Refactored a little, and added information about the Small Arms Survey, as you suggested - what do you think? Mark Richards 20:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I find it great now, there is the UN statement, link to research, link to opinions from the other side. Names of some places that export with little control. Should enable anyone to make up his own opinion. It should also explain the need for more controls on military type small arms, and the conroversy around the definition of small arms.

Regards, MeSwiss

Great! I'm glad we are on the same page! I have added some more on arms exporters, I think the ones previously were mainly cold war? Mark Richards 17:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This page is real good now. I hope that with time we can find some links to articles about countries and companies that continue to export military type small arms into regions of the world where these goods should not go to.

Regards, Meswiss

[edit] Gun Laws Are just Silly

Dudtz Limiting gun sales does nothing people will just buy them illegally or make them People also like to collect wepons and don't intend to use them that much

This is a total opinion based write up.and you spelled weapons wrong. zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.206.60 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kofi Annan Quote

What in the world is going on with this quote:

"The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also calmed the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to love and kindness. These, in turn, have helped development prospects and increased human security in every way." - Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

?

I have removed it.

Should be: "The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

[edit] First line

"Small arms proliferation is a term of art used by organizations advocating the restriction of small arms sales to private citizens in conflict zones." - This is an inaccurate representation of the Control Arms Campaign, which informs the key part of this article. That campaign seeks control of the trade in small arms - to all parties in conflict zones and not simply private citizens. Donnacha 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Private citizens" are by definition non-combatants. Otherwise they would be either "militia", "thugs", "insurgents", but not "private citizens". As such, they would only use arms in self defence, in situations where combatants where trying to kill them. A private citizen would not be talking of "arms proliferation", but instead would be saying things like "I need a gun to defend my family". So, yes, "small arms proliferation" is a term of art used by groups that would deny this private citizen the right to defend himself and his family. Dullfig 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to what Dullfig just said. Dullfig, we are having a serious disagreement at Amnesty International. Anytime you want to come over there and pitch in please do! Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The control arms campaign is about the unregulated international sale and transfer of arms. It has nothing to do with private ownership - unless American gun nuts support the availability of illegal arms. Donnacha 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
American gun nuts. I guess that tells us what side you are on :-) Dullfig 04:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's my POV, but I'm not trying to rewrite the article to fit that. I'm trying to get people to make it NPOV and in accordance with the facts. Donnacha 08:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, here is some food for thought: there are no more illegal guns as there are illegal hammers. Guns are a tool. Some people want to do harm with them, some people just want to defend themselves. Hopefully the latter outnumber the former. But anytime you start talking about "illegal", it means the government is trying to regulate who should and who shouldn't have guns, and invariably these laws only end up disarming law-abiding citizens, because by definition, thugs never obey the laws. So I don't buy the concept of illegal guns (OK, maybe canons should be illegal :-). Dullfig 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Why should cannons be illegal? An American gun nut Whiskey Rebellion 07:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It was more of a tongue in cheek comment :-) Dullfig 17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


NPOV alert! --70.100.168.203 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of viewed and unsourced

Although this article is quite short and I believe it should be expanded, I have removed the Gun owners' organizations view section.

I believe they are representing inaccurate views by the organisations they cite, and that this is backed up by three citation needed tags, and not one source.

By all means revert and modify the section, but please get some sources. 220.239.88.91 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amnesty International as a source

I'm just wondering what anyone knows about using Amnesty International as a source. They're a highly political organization, and it's not clear to me that they follow the publishing guidelines outlined for use as a reliable source in WP:SOURCES. Arthurrh 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)