UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban

Post Reply New Topic

It has a lot of graphs so I'm just going to use a link.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/united-nations-ignores-its-own-data-to-promote-gun-ban/?singlepage=true

It is a function of government to collect and disseminate data.

It is a function of government to enact measures that seem good [from somebody's viewpoint] at the time.

It is not among the functions of government to use the output of one proess as an input to the other.

Yes because they support a police state where only those in charge have guns. Unfortunately, a disarmed populace has lead to the largest mass murder and genocides in human history. But I'm afraid that this sick pathology has taken root in too many good souls who just want a better world. It is not good or moral policy. Even a saint like Ghandi advocated that the Jews should use peaceful protest and give into Hitler and Hitler will see the goodness in their ways and be more tolerant and peaceful.

It's like that twilight episode zone episodes where they took earthlings unto a rocket ship and they finally deciphered what the book was: to serve man... as a meal... I feel the same about those who support the disarmament of all people for the sake of peace. To then ensure that peace will require the largest police state imaginable to ensure lasting peace. They're morally inept at making a differentiation between who and what is evil... like most modern day germans who, instead of learning from the horrors of their not-to-distant past to fight evil... learned instead that fighting was evil.

They are serving us to the God of Humanism as if moral progress can be transmitted via osmosis. Taking guns away from people won't diminish evil... it'll just mean that we don't have guns whereas our caretakers(government) do. Mao starved his people, Hitler gassed the jews, and Pol Pot only needed a hammer, tree branch, or pickax to fill a ditch full of bodies... The human experience with stupid utopian dreams does not have a good track record with a lot of human beings sacrificed on the alter of those dumb ideas.

If a government (or in the UN's case, a wannabe government) does not use the best available data to make decisions, then they are acting on their own private agenda based on their fears and fantasies.

I don't have a lot of faith in the UN. Them cherry picking or ignoring their own data to support an agenda is not all that surprising to me. I suppose the UN has its uses but there are many aspects of it I am critical of

f**k the UN and their agenda. They need to be disbanded.

Okay, where are you guys actually saying they are doing this? I'm seeing a lot of data correlating gun ownership with economic freedom, but you learn the difference between correlation and causation in your first day of class in an introductory high school level stats course.

My view on gun control is that we should go with the option that involves fewer people getting killed or being miserable, whatever the heck that is, and I think that ideological black&white-thinking pundits for either side of the discussion ought to be gassed and pushed into a mass grave with a big, yellow bulldozer. You freaking drama queens are relentless.

The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right, and not subject to options one way or the other.
It is a black and white issue.

BTW: Incineration is better than mass graves when it comes to genocide.
Just thought I'd let you know

Alright, now let's see the vulgar and not-so-bright distortions of statistics you think you need to prove this point.

In one discussion, I took the same non-aligned stance on it that I have here, and the person I was talking to was trying to feed me a bunch of garbage distortions of really crappy and majorly out-dated statistics, and I finally got annoyed and gave the bloke a lecture on the fine details of how to find valid statistics and how to evaluate them systematically and with a sense of validity. This was right after I had taken a class in the subject, so the information was pretty hot in my mind at the time.

You know what that freakind dumbass proceeded to do? He proceeded to castigate me for using too many "five-dollar words." He actually accused me of using impressive-sounding language to cover up a lack of actual knowledge on the subject, and that finally got me pissed off over this subject.

Frankly, I'm too soft-hearted in practice to actually use a weapon in a situation where I would need it, but I really don't feel all that threatened by those kinds of situations. I know that my chances of being assaulted with a deadly weapon under circumstances that I am observing fairly standard and easy-to-follow safety precautions are less than my chances of being struck by lightening.

You know, the way I see it, an arrogant and ostentatious upper-class are a much bigger threat to my health than whether people own guns. In fact, they're a bigger threat to my health than if I chugged a fifth of Russian vodka and went out for a joy ride in a sport car. Parading your wealth, rather than showing a sense of respect and humility, gives illiterate imbeciles a sense of justification in going out and shooting some innocent guy just to prove a point. That's not something that we can legislate, though. The only way that can ever change is the people who hold the wealth realize in their own hearts the value of humility.

But I honestly don't give a flying horny purple f**k whether the law says you can buy a gun or not. The issue that gets me is how people seem to think they have to behave like obnoxious idiots about it.

I don't have a clue where your coming from or where you're going with this.
Hell, you lost me after the first half of the first sentence and I only understood the "vulgar" part because I am a vulgar MF'er.

Sigh.......after that you go into some kind of drivel about the upper class and it looks like you think I'm upper class (trust me I'm not) but I can't tell exactly who this is really aimed at . Way too much angry (at whatever) ramblings to make any sense of.
Go sleep it off.

I think this an emotional point fueled by jealousy and hate, which is fine that you are emoting it, but not so fine that one would feel okay with another killing someone because of jealousy or greed issues. What would a wealthy person flaunting their wealth have to do with a poor person shooting up another person to prove a point anyways? Most people who "gang-bang for fun" do so because they enjoy violence. You take someone's life and suddenly you've passed that line of no return... and the only way is up the hierarchy through violence and coercion. It's a game, and they think the winners are the ones who know how to play it... they look up Donald Trump and Obama, 50 cent and Bill gates... of if they are very ethnically based, then people of their own ethnic group who are "ballin"

I believe you wrote recently about correlation and causation ... yet you write one thing and blame it on something completely different, which is fine. I don't see the correlation but perhaps I'm missing something.


Either way... what is your take on the article? It is about the UN trying to standardize gun laws world wide through their banning the general population everywhere from having them. They believe it will lead to less violence.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, I mean we are talking about the UN here, not an agency with any actual relevancy to anything.

The UN gun ban will by far have a greater impact on ducks and paper targets than blood diamonds and child soldiers. Unlike the guns in civilian hands in developed countries, the guns used by guerrilla groups and terrorist organizations do not go through normal trade procedures. They are sold to smugglers by corrupt generals in countries with corrupt governments, and shipped to countries with corrupt customs agents or countries that just don't care. Not only that, but it does not do anything to stop governments from massacring people. America and Germany, Austria, and Switzerland all produce a lot of guns, but those governments don't just allow someone to send a shipment anywhere they want, and all of them have customs officials that will impound the shipment if there is any questions about the export paperwork. However, the big suppliers of arms to the third world, Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, are united in fighting the treaty and will not abide by it if it passes.

The decline of the UN seems to me at least similar to the decline of the League of Nations with some analogies between the two time periods. Hopefully its total inefficacy won't be sealed by a Third World War

If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. The League of Nations did nothing more than sublimate aggression into passive aggression. If a country is big enough of a threat, then standing up to that threat and pulling no punches would make a lot more sense than just refusing to trade since Japan's conquest into Manchuria was motivated by economic struggles to begin with. And of course radicals cannot be negotiated with since the reason they are radicals in the first place is cuz they demand a degree of change that doesn't leave a lot of room for compromise.

The UN was irrelevant before it's creation.