June 20, 2006
-
First, let me be clear. I’m in support of personal possession of firearms. Not because I’m afraid of people, but because I’m afraid of governments. I WANT the government that controls the land my house is on to know that I can and will shoot back if they go too far in violating what I perceive as my rights. I am also an omnivore who would like to limit my dependence on the meat industry and I’m a lousy shot with a bow…
That said, violence and the threat of violence are the ultimate forms of coercion. (My philosophy says that coercion is an ungood). In many parts of the world, anyone with a couple bucks to get some automatic weapons and a box of rounds can be a two-bit warlord or worse.
There’s a campaign to at least limit the free flow of arms to anyone with the money to pay for it – nothing too invasive on a personal level – just an international arms control treaty. Something to limit the flow of weapons across borders.
If you’re not in support, that’s OK. The threat of lethal violence can also be used to oppose coercion. Its a bit hard to know really what’s best, but I think a treaty is a good idea.
Frankly, someone who wants them badly enough is still going to get them, but we’ve all seen the pictures of the 10 year old African kids with guns as big as they are. That situation just can’t go well, and we can make it a bit less likely for the gun to get to them…
If you’re in support, sign the petition to the UN. They’re looking for a million signers. They’ve got over 900,000 signers (and over half a million that have attached their face to their signature).
Comments (2)
Nice information as always.
right on! we just had an event in Toronto urging more signers.