|
My friend Martin who sends me more emials than anyone else comes up with some priceless stuff. This one is a debate sent to him from another friend and I thought it was worth a page. It shows that intelligent arguement on the gun issue always comes out on the side of sensibility. We know this, so what is the real agenda of the anti-gun nuts. Martin Hi Ned, ----- Original Message ----- Ned> This is good stuff. I'd like to make a page for it and link it to my gun page.............> Go right ahead >what's the story behind the origional email? Who's Mikhail Seliankin? With the UN >and Robert J. Suizdak? Just a US citizen fighting the UN inspired Gun controls >(pardon my ignorance) Thats OK. I am fairly ignorant most of the time. I don't think you can compete with me though. Ha >And do you think there would be any objections? No. I haven't had a reply from Seliekin since I last emailed him. Martin > Ned > http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/guns.html > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Essenberg" > To: "Mikhail Seliankin" > Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2001 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: Gun Control > > > > Hi Mr Seliankin > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mikhail Seliankin" > > > > > I absolutely agree with you that the problem which is now being discussed at the UN Conference is extremely complex and has no simple solutions. > > The problem of guns has no simple solutions because do-gooders refuse to accept that guns are not the problem - people are. It has no simple solutions because do-gooders refuse to accept that the best way people can be protected FROM gun violence is to give them a gun rather than to - but fail- have the authorites protect people. > > It is equally true that different countries approach this issue from different perspectives. > > True- most dictatorships will try to ensure that they control all the guns- just like the UN wants to control all the guns. > > That is why this Conference presents a unique opportunity for UN Member States to thoroughly discuss all issues involved and try to arrive at a mutually acceptable political document which would help curb the illicit trafficking of small arms. > > Why is the trafficking illicit? Don't some of the people getting supplied with guns have definite grievances that can only be solved by justifiable revolutuin against their oppressors? The East Timorese suffered badly because they had no guns. So what did the UN do for them for 25 years while the Indonesian Government was killing them? What about the Kurds who are persecuted by both Saddam Hussein and the Turkish government. How about the Tutsis killed in the Rwandan genocide? What has the UN done to solve the civil war in Sri Lanka? > > All you do by controlling trafficing is have the UN decide that they will support corrupt member governments and prevent oppressed minorities from protecting themselves. All I can see on TV is the failures of the UN. If the UN can't protect people why shouldn't they get guns legally or illegally to protect themselves? > > > > What follows is from a friend > > Statistics show that the vast majority of legal gun owners (98+%) have never committed crimes in their countries and in the USA alone the 43 of 50 states with some form of Carry (concealed or open) not only have lower violent crime rates but have never had the "shoot out like the Old West" as predicted. > > Not to mention the city of Kennesaw Georgia since enacting a mandator"armed per household" law not only saw its crime rate drop over the past 12 years but its violent crime rate and its gun crime rate is NON Existent... > > When the decent law abiding person is able to arm themselves and provide for their own protection, protection of their home and family they are 1000 times more effective than conventional law enforcement and the incidents of them firing is very low - while the statistics of them showing a firearm without firing and preventing a crime are quite high. > > Criminals do not venture where they know they might meet resistance of ANY kind. Criminals ONLY prey on those they know are unable to defend themselves via any means.> > History has shown without fail that those unable to arm themselves are preyed upon both via the criminal element and also their own governments bent on total control and dictatorship. > > > > > "Martin Essenberg" > > > Please respond to "Martin Essenberg" > > > To: "Mikhail Seliankin" > > > cc: > > > Subject: Re: Gun Control > > > Mr Seliankin, > > > Mr Suizdak forwarded on to me your message. > > > You say that "Nor is it meant to take guns away from their legal owners" > > > Well it seems to me that because of Australian government compliance with your aims that people in Australia are no longer permitted to own semi-automatic weapons (even .22 calibre) nor to own pump action shotguns, nor to own bolt action weapons with a magazine capacity of greater than 5 rounds. Some 600,000 guns WERE removed from their lawful owners. > > > To own airguns, or bolt action rifles with a magazine capacity of less than 5 rounds we need government permission. Now it is illegal in Queensland, Australia, to own a permanently INoperable weapon without a permit. > > > It seems to me that even where the Government allows the continued ownership of weapons that there are further restrictions as to who may own weapons or for what offences one may cease being a "responsible" citizen who is allowed to own weapons. > > > In Australia in some states even traffic violations may be reason to have ones weapons licence removed. > > > You may be sincere and be genuinely trying to target "unscrupulous arms dealers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, terrorists and others", however as an Australian who is currently in the courts for the unlicenced possession of a rifle STOCK (piece of wood) it would seem that gun controls seem to more detrimental to the honest citizen than the dishonest one. > > > You say "To fight back, the international community needs better laws and more effective regulations. " > > > To this I will agree- the laws and regulations in Australia relating to gun control have been totally futile in protecting the rights of law abiding Australian citizens while doing nothing about criminals having guns. > > > We in Australia definitely need BETTER laws and regulations. The ones we have are a joke. > > > The problem is that organisations like the UN seem to have no common sense. > > > In a vain search for Utopia you destroy what you think to protect. > > > Martin Essenberg > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Mikhail Seliankin" > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2001 7:03 > > > Subject: Gun Control > > > Dear Mr. Suizdak, > > > I think you have been misinformed about the goals of the UN Conference. >> > It is not about taking away weapons from their legal owners. It is about illegal trafficking with deadly weapons produced to military specifications. The world is flooded with small arms and light weapons numbering at more than 500 million, enough for one of every 12 people on earth. Most of these are controlled by legal authorities or legal private owners, but when they fall into the hands of terrorists, criminals and irregular forces, small arms bring devastation. > > >Here is some statistics: > > > small arms were the weapons of choice in 46 out of 49 major conflicts since 1990, small arms kill between 200,000 and 300,000 people a year; 80 percent-of small arms and light weapons victims are children and women; almost 60 million displaced persons in the world cannot return home due to conflict and violence. > > > The Conference is not meant to infringe on national sovereignty, limit the right of states to defend themselves, interfere with their responsibility to provide security, or subvert the right of peoples to self-determination. Nor is it meant to take guns away from their legal owners. Its targets are unscrupulous arms dealers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, terrorists and others who bring death and mayhem into streets, schools and towns throughout the world. > > > To fight back, the international community needs better laws and more effective regulations. It is hoped that the Conference will be a step towards creating tighter controls over the illicit trade in the illegal small arms and light weapons. > > > It is also important to understand that all decisions of the Conference will be taken by consensus, meaning that all Member States, including the United States, will have to agree to a final document. In any event this document will not be legally-binding instrument. It will be a political declaration. > > > Best regards > > > Mikhail Seliankin > > > Department of Public Information > > > > > > > > > You, like many others fallible leaders are failures in stopping violence, wars, genocide and repression. > > > This is not your fault. Since the beginning of time we as people have not been able to defeat the evil that motivates the power hungry. > > > What is your fault is attempting to remove defensive small arms and the protection from those evil men? If this is not your objective, you have a lot of explaining to do. I know the UN does not send unarmed troops into any conflict, why is that? > > > History and current events prove beyond any reasonable doubt that removing protection increases the death count. History shows that any political entity that registers firearms, later confiscates them. Can you prove this is wrong, say in Australia, England or Canada to name a few current examples? > > > How about genocide? > > >How will you prove your efforts will not result in the killing of millions like the Jews during Hitler's terror or Pol Pots, elimination of intellectuals that might outsmart him or China's extraneous population, which is exterminated due simply to their government's policy? > > > I see your aggressive attempt to track firearms as a scapegoat for your failure of diplomacy. Your are redirecting attention from your failures to some other object which people will intern redirect their hostility leaving you innocent. Our former President and connoisseur of female interns used the same diversion technique in many matters for the sole purpose of political gain. > > > Has Iraq turned in it's weapons of mass destruction? > > >NO. > > >Why not? > > >Then why in Gods name are you focused on small arms? Where are your priorities? > > > Let me explain, a small arm may either save or takes lives dependin on the circumstances. A weapon of mass destruction will always and without concern take/kill thousands if not millions of people. > > >Again, where are your priorities? > > > I believe you joining this small arms hate movement is designed to cover your failure to stop violence. You have jumped on the politically correct bandwagon assuming what you see in the media is fact. > > >Wrong! > > >You may think you are joining a winning team in this popular antigun battle, but knowledge and truth will defeat your efforts. Far sighted leaders such as President Bush will not sacrifice truth for political gain. > > > By the Way, when you feel comfortable and no longer need the safety and protection of your police/security force, maybe then you will set an example to the world and eliminate your guards armed with small arms. > > > That will signal to the world that all are safe! > > > I won't hold my breath until then. > > > Robert J. Suizdak > > > 7 Carriage Drive > > > Enfield, CT 00608-5636 860 749-3790 |