International end run for gun control

I really did not want to get political in this blog, wanting to make it a discussion of what it means to carry a weapon in public. But there are some issues that I think have a huge impact on this right, and the UN plans for gun control are ranked right up there.




First, a little background. The entire Programme of Action deals with much more than small arms. Its stated purpose is to control the illegal flow of weapons to people and countries that have proven themselves to be a danger. This is a worthwhile and noble effort, and I agree with it in principle. Guns indeed do kill people, and that is never a good thing. My complaint is with the methods they are choosing to do this, which pretty much trample on what has recently been recently confirmed by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right.



The biggest complaints are generally around the measures they suggest for tracing of weapons. So, here in yet another list are my thoughts on the matter:

• Tracing a gun cannot prevent a crime in the individual sense. It is only after a crime has occurred that the authorities can use this information to find out where the gun came from. So it will have no impact on the amount of street crime
• One place that it will be helpful is the identification of large sources of illegal weapons, such as governments giving weapons to insurgents or terrorists. But there is little that can be done to stop this, even if we knew who was doing it
• In the US, manufacturers are currently required to stamp each and every weapon they build with a serial number, their name, their location, the caliber and other information. This has been going on for quite some time, so how exactly will adding additional stamped information to weapons help things, except by increasing the cost of these weapons to make it economically difficult to own them
• Micro-stamping is a ridiculous idea. For those that don't know what it is, a manufacturer would be required to put some mechanism in place to mark each and every round of ammunition fired by a weapon with a unique identifying mark. Besides being unbelievably expensive to implement and maintain records for, it has been shown that no method of micro-stamping is strong enough to stand more than a small number of firings before the marks are illegible (always less than 100, but most are less than 10 firings). So all you need to do is take you handgun (whose price went way up, see above) and shoot a couple boxes of ammo at the range to make your weapon untraceable by micro-stamping. Again, all it does is make it much more expensive to build weapons, making them much more expensive to buy. So soon the only ones who can buy them are politicians, celebrities and governments.
• The plan as it is expected to pass in 2012 or 2014 will include drastic restrictions on private sales. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start.
• First, guns are not illegal so why would there be restrictions on selling and purchasing. You can buy and sell as many cars as you like, and they cause every bit as much death and devastation as guns. You don't even have to register them unless you are going to use them on a public roadway, so you could have an unlimited number sitting on your property unregistered and there is nothing that is illegal about that.
• Second, by restricting private sales it becomes easier to maintain records of who owns what. I am not enamored of the idea that there exists a list of weapons that I own sitting in some far off government office. Regardless of how vehemently the gun control side says these lists are not for confiscations, there is always the chance that some government group or individual could ever-step their bounds and do something on their own. Look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina, where legally owned weapons were confiscated simply because the government thought it might be a good idea. So all these people are now helpless to defend themselves against criminals and looters. There are several states that have similar laws on their books.
• The idea that restricting private sales of weapons would somehow decrease the ability of criminals to purchase them is absurd. Most of these criminals are already felons, so they are not legally able to have them already. So obviously they are not really concerned about the law they may be breaking. Criminals don't buy guns from gun shows or other private gun owners; they buy them from other criminals who have probably stolen them in the first place.
• I have said previously that I support the idea of having some control on who may have guns in public places, and that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the public safety by making sure permit holders are properly registered and tested. However, I am 100% against the idea that there should be requirements on registering guns. If I can legal own a weapon, I should be legally allowed to own any approved weapons without restriction.
• There has never been a case where registration of weapons has not lead to restriction of weapons
• There has never been a case where restriction of weapons caused a decrease in violent crime. See Canada, England, Scotland, most eastern European counties and just about any place in the world that a populace has been disarmed, making them a sitting duck for any group of people who do own weapons, legal or not.

The current administration supports the UN treaty, because they have been unable to successfully pass gun control legislation in this country. So, rather than abide by the will of the people (as expressed in their constant rejection of these laws), they are going to sign the US up to be a major member of an ill-conceived UN proposal that has no real teeth anyway. Oh, and by the way, who do you think is going to be on the hook to pay for all the corrupt bureaucracy and bloated tools to support these initiatives? Since Russia, China and most of the Middle Eastern countries abstained from the vote, I doubt they are going to be too quick to pick up the tab.

So, please express your displeasure with your Senators. The only possible good thing is that, even if our diplomats get us involved in this, it will require a 2/3 vote of the Senate to approve it. So lets make sure that doesn't happen. And then let's try enforcing the laws we already have to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys, and in the hands of good guys.