Weapons Proliferation

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articl ... =&pageid=1

Much of the nations of the world wish to enact a treaty limiting the proliferation of weapons. The UN states that it was an overwhelming response and its likly to become global policy.

Of course that brings them up against the American group the NRA.

The consistution allows the right to bear arms in order to form a militia, but ALSO so the people can arm themselfs against a hostile govenment if nesissary.

This policy can someday affect what happens in the US.

It's hilarious that the think they can control this trade. The people who want the arms will get them no matter what. I guess they never heard of smuggling. The price will go higher but then they will just find easier ways to make the money. Drugs, blood diamonds, etc. Good times!

It will help prevent people standing up to their governments. I can certainly see why over 100 governments want it.

The same points the NRA use to defend The American rights to bear arms would apply thoughout the world. But no one wants to admit it.

It gives more ways to denounce the United States. Foreign countries love that.

And it looks good on paper.

The NRA makes another point. There's already laws to regulate the arms trade. Why don't they enforce those.

Ya, i mean, I bet if such a treaty does become policy the US wont be a part of it (like kyoto).

Of course, givin enough time even in the US I truly beleive in the future weapons will be tightly controled, wayyyyyyy more then today, or technology will be such that these weapons can be rendered useless someday, for whatever reason (like placing a micreochip in the gun to prevent it from fireing if in the wrong hands) or even a total ban all together. In another 100 years I bet we see a huge reduction worldwide on weapons in houses around the world, yet governments will continue to have huge stockpiles of arms!!

The UN comes up with a lot of these treaties mostly because the member nations want someone else to pay for and enforce such laws.

They can't even enforce the laws they have on nuclear weapons. All you need for small arms is a machine shop just how would they stop that?

If a global reduction of weaponry were to be carried out, it would have to be truly global to have any effect. How many wars have been prevented because one side or the other has superior weapons capability? How many have been prevented because the aggressor has inferior capability? Is Russia (or anyone else) seriously going to consider limiting itself militarily if the states arent going to? Besides, given that weapon technology is quite capable of advancing without anything further than a BLACKSMITH, I see now reason for this to really help. Conflicts are not caused by weaponry, they happen through ideology and its ilk. War and confict have been ahppening since way before the concept of industrial-level production. I would point you to the Simpsons episode where Aliens strip the earth of ALL weaponry. Not only is the world endangered by a zombie incursion, but someone gets a stick with a nail in it, so someone else gets an even bigger stick with a nail in it, and so the escalation increases until the world is DOOMED. (actually that might be two seperate episodes, but you see the point.)

Though one thought for weapons reduction.. stop the production of the AK47 and the RPG? Probably about half the amount of weapons instantly.

The AK47 and RPG are also among the easiest weapons to build yourself... so that's not going to accomplish much. Weapons trade restrictions will just result in weapons being "open-sourced", with many of them suffering in quality to the point of being unsafe to operate. On the other hand, they'd likely end up being cheaper, and much more difficult to trace to an owner if used in a crime since there'd be no serial number, registration, records of sale, et cetera. My interpretation is that it would empower organized crime and terrorism while impeding legitimate civil self-defense, an all-round losing proposition.

How about.. guns are cheap and easy, but making the bullets really expensive?

Or.. ban ALL small arms. people can only own or buy large field artillery. Bound to cut down on drive-bys, and theres no such thing as carrying a concealed 105mm field gun.

(Yes, i'm being facetious)

Whilst ever people have the desire, intent, or reason to make war on one another, they will find a way. Its not illegal to make a trebuchet, but I could.. and then bombard the town centre with various unpleasantry.

You can make a mortar out of about anything. You can ignite a house using fireworks. Flame-thrower? Piece of piss to build. Bombs? Molotov cocktails? Any kitchen in the land can provide.

Sod removing the guns. Remove the reasons people need to use them. THEN we might get somewhere.