[url]www.unog.ch/UNIDIR/discus-1.htm[/url]

Such weapons distort societies, they make it increasingly difficult for a society to rebuild itself following a period of bloody conflict, [blue]they make it harder for the State to regain the legitimate monopoly of force, they enhance the capabilities of criminals, thus compromising the effectiveness of police forces and encouraging law-abiding civilians to arm themselves for protection,[/blue] they lower the threshold for violence and they are very easy for children to obtain and use.

[blue]4. Ammunition control

The 7.62 or 5.56 calibre ammunition for military-style automatic rifles is widely produced and traded. In conflict situations, it is used in large quantities. Regulating its supply from both domestic and foreign suppliers could therefore assist in reducing the incidence of violence and the duration and destructiveness of conflicts. Where weapons are widespread and offer no immediate hope for successful mopping up, and where combatants require resupplies in ammunition, restricting ammunition supplies can be the only significant option. Reducing the ease with which ammunition can be acquired can also make it less attractive for former combatants and civilians to retain their weapons in post-conflict situations. As with the weapons themselves, legal governmental stockpiles of ammunition need to be properly managed and accounted for so as to increase the legitimate control of stocks. Ammunition stocks need to be regularly monitored and surplus and obsolete along with unusable and unstable stocks need to be destroyed rather then sold off.[/blue]

[blue]5. Civil society campaign

One of the great difficulties with the debates around controlling small arms and light weapons is the large numbers of legal, about-to-become-illegal and illegal weapons in circulation and the complexities involved that are raised by increased availability ¾ not least of which is the often understandable need for such weapons in a number of situations. This has made it easy for opponents of small arms control in any form to knock down initiatives and ideas as quickly as they spring up. It has also meant that it has been hard to find a collective focus for a civil society-based campaign on the issue, with NGOs working on a myriad of scattered initiatives, and often seeming to be running around in circles.

In addition, it has proved extraordinarily difficult to gather reliable data on the types and quantities of small arms that are in existence and that are doing the damage.

However, both from quantitative research and strong anecdotal evidence, there is clearly a major problem with military weapons in the hands of civilians as outlined above.

If a concerted campaign were to be formed to remove such weapons from civilian hands this would have a number of distinct advantages:

It would strike to the heart of the humanitarian problem - their removal and control would have a significant impact on the numbers of killing and maiming during and post conflicts;
It would provide a clear focus and sense of purpose for NGOs and governments alike;
It would be hard for the anti-control lobby to argue against such an initiative - after all who could easily justify the right for civilians to bear arms built for military purposes and thus argue taking automatic and semi-automatic weapons off the streets of cities and out of schools;
The public is likely to readily understand and support such a campaign in both developed and developing countries;
It might be easier to gain cross-country support and assist like-minded (and interested parties) initiatives;
It might be easier to implement both nationally and sub-regionally with support at the international level than attempts to control a much wider cross-section of weapons.
International cooperation both at the regional and global level will be required
Civil society organizations could develop an education and awareness campaign for preventing the spread of military style weapons and for the collection and destruction of those in circulation.
Conclusion

The time seems to be ripe for a different approach to small arms control. This approach should be focused on the weapons that are doing most harm to people and their security. Efforts in small arms control, such as marking, tracking, ammunition control, production control could all form part of this approach, but only as part of a bigger whole, driven by humanitarian needs. Such efforts then would no longer be perceived as tinkering at the edges of the problem, rather their efficacy could be determined in the light of the larger goal. Tackling civilian-held, military-style weapons may provide an approach that could strike to the heart of the problem, obtain global and regional support, provide a focus for governmental and non-governmental action and achieve lasting good.[/blue]

For those not aware, www.unog.ch is the United Nations Office at Geneva website, and UNIDIR is the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.  

The interesting thing I noted was the concentration on NATO weapons and ammunition, and the exclusion of any Warsaw-pact weapons.  (Whoops!  Hangfire already got to that!)

And the comment on "legitimate monopoly of force" is the one that REALLY grabbed my attention.  Like hell.  Come and get mine.

Good work, Hangfire.  Thanks for finding and posting that.

THANK NEIL BOORTZ AND A PATRIOT THAT SENT IT TO
HIM.
[red]THIS IS THE "LINE IN THE SAND"[/red]

Holy shit! We should go to Genoa and throw some rocks or something! [BD]

UN [heavy]

Need to start stocking up on ammo while the stocking up is good.

You know, I actually pity these people. They really do think that citizen disarmament and centralization of guns (i.e. through the government) will promote world peace and reduce violence. Do they teach anything about the Nazis in European or American modern history classes any more? Well, worse comes to worse, we'll just have to use .300 Win Mag or .338 Lapua Magnum in BULK QUANTITY.

themao [chainsawkill]

Where have all the pro UN commandos gone? I haven't read any of their ridiculous pro UN posts lately. Maybe there have been enough articles and speeches from the UN's own press and mouth lately to shame them into silence.

I think that it is rational to say that this is one more incremental step that will be used to further the anti-freedom agenda in America.  The most anti-gun, radical, facist politicions will use this UN document as an excuse to push for more restrictions in the US - (See what the rest of the World is doing, why aren't we?)

I think that it is interesting to note that many of these points in this document have been addressed by current and past politicions.  If I remember correctly there have been numerous bills that have been introduced in the House and Senate that mirror these points, but never pass, none the less they DO get introduced.  That, my Friends, is what disturbes me.  We are just one President or Congress away from total facism.

TTT

Whats entertaining is the United African Contingent states "it is shameful that America allows it's citizens to own small arms, there is no way for the government to assure control".

Last I heard, they were eating each other in 14% of the continent.

There idea of control is getting peope to sit in the pot?

yes it is...

i would also add that:


i will be more than happy to give you my ammo first!   [heavy]

Wonderful Idea, but why not start with governments first, and civilians will naturally follow.

For starters, the UN can show everyone how it works and disarm  governments in third world countries.  

Good Luck, dumb idea!

The above quote is LIBERAL ELITIST BABBLE which
when translated reads DK can't be brotheredPROF
has no clue as to what is going on in the world
outside his IVORY CASTLE.
You can bet the farm that any response to this
will be filled with personal attacks and
absolutely no explaination as to how the U.N.
really works.
I will tell you that the U.N. works in absolute
secrecy unlike our system. Why is that Professor?

Hey it was all phrophesized years ago, The first step to a one world government is the removal of threats to that government. Our Constitution is a threat to that government. I will never be a citizen of such a government, I will not take any mark on my hand or forehead that will show I am a citizen of that government. If Jesus comes first, that would be great, but since he isn't going to, then I am stockpiling the ammo buddy.
-Chuck