Unintended consequences
Amnesty Internation: Women should arm themselves. Well, paraphrased, of course:
The activists noted there were an estimated 650 million guns in circulation around the world — almost all in the hands of men.
“Given that they are almost never the buyers, owners or users of small arms, (women) suffer disproportionately from armed violence,” said Denise Searle of Amnesty International, one of the groups releasing the report.
In other words, they suffer because they can’t shoot back. Of course, that is not the point of the piece. It’s point is that the world should crack down on small arms proliferation through gun control:
Gun control activists said on Monday the world was awash in small arms, fuelling violence, and called for global cooperation and stricter limits on the trade.
“You can’t control international arms proliferation, especially small arms proliferation, without international cooperation,” said Brian Wood, Amnesty International’s arms and security trade research manager. “We want tough action.”
And what is this tough action?
Gun control campaigners hoped the report would give fresh impetus to moves to impose more regulation on the world trade in small arms, although they noted progress to date has been slow.
A 2001 U.N. action programme on the trade has yielded few results, but campaigners hope a review meeting in 2006 will push improvements such as a world arms trade registry, written arms shipment permits and better policing.
I’m antsy about registering with my own government. Registering with some sort of world body is out of the question. And we see the careful manipulation of statistics:
Statistics worldwide indicate young men are the main victims of small arms, whether used in disputes, in conflict zones or in criminal activity including gang violence. – Actually, they’re usually the victim of other young men. Guns just don’t go killing on their own.
“Where guns are available, more women are likely to be killed,” Searle said. – You mean like in Rwanda and the Sudan?
South Africa, famous for high crime rates, sees a woman shot dead by a current or former partner every 18 hours, according to statistics from the state-funded Medical Research Council. – It’s high crime rates even though it has all but banned firearm ownership?
U.S. studies have shown that having a gun in the house increases the risk that someone in the house will be murdered by 41 percent, but boosts the risk for women by 272 percent. – That statistic has been proven false many times over.
Some countries such as Canada and Australia have managed to bring down the murder rate of women by toughening laws on gun licensing. But the problem is growing in the developing world, where such safeguards are harder to implement. From Africa to Afghanistan, civil strife, insurgencies and cross-border wars have increased the threat of gun violence against women, putting huge quantities of guns into circulation in countries as social norms and legal frameworks collapse – Canada and Australia have a higher violent crime rate than the US. But the US has them beat in murder rate.
March 9th, 2005 at 12:33 am
There are too many large arms floating around to worry about the small ones. We need the small ones to have any hope against the large ones anyway.
Uncle, this doesn’t have much to do with the Amnesty Intl story, but I’m curious whether you make distinctions between small and large arms. Is it acceptable to regulate missiles differently than rifles? Armories differently than gun safes?
Does your aversion to international regulation mean you believe nations should be free to arm themselves as they desire?
March 9th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Heh. That’s a thinker. Large arms v. small arms, I’ve not really thought about so much. However, in terms of drawing the line on what arms the second amendment protects (and realize that the US first navy was privatly owned), i think the line should be drawn at what weapons an infantry man carries as they denote the presevation and efficacy of a militia. So, yes I think people should be allowed to own M-16s. Whereas a nuke or missile probably doesn’t.
With respect to nations arming themselves, I don’t have any aversion to that. After all, a function of government is the defense of its people. But, in that same regard, if a country proves to be a bit aggressive with its arms, then another nation stopping them is not unreasonable. Of course, we don’t want every crackpot ruler out there having nukes, either.
March 9th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Personally, I don’t even want the rulers who appear civil and stable to have nukes.
I didn’t know our first navy was private. That’s interesting. Do you know of any good books chronicling the evolution of our military or the evolution of arms regulation in the US?
What if Bill Gates decided to build his own navy? What if he wanted just one nuke to keep aimed at Linus Torvalds?
March 9th, 2005 at 10:47 am
No books come immediately to mind and i forgot where i read it. Also, the first cannons employed by the US military were privately owned.
there is no law to prevent bill gates from buying a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier. Only laws that prohibit him from putting bombs, destructive devices, and machine guns made after 1986 on it.