The United Nations claims that the "gun culture" that we have today is responsible for crime and violence. I would beg to differ. Before guns even existed, there was violence in the world and there were murders. I would point to the history of Europe from 1000 AD to 1600 AD - a safe period to say that the continent was all but free of firearms. Can anyone tell me who did NOT walk around with at least one knife or dagger with them to ward off thieves or muggers of the day? Perhaps not the clergy, nor the rich lords and ladies who could afford bruisers to guard them, but quite a few did. Self-protection.

Humans are a violent species. We always will be. We are envious, jealous, cruel, and capable of all kinds of bad things. There are many out there who do not act upon these desires. There are many who do. The humans who do decide to rape, rob, kill, steal, all choose to do so and will do so with whatever is at hand - gun, knife, pipe, chain, or even simple "brute" strength. Even among the very socially domesticated, these incidents do occur. Let's take Japan, often held up as a model for the anti-gun crowd because of its quite solid social structure and its effectively total ban on civilian firearms ownership. Yes, Japan has a lot going for it - solid family structures, solid societal hierarchy, a sort of national mental security. Yet where did this come from? Carryovers from the ancient histories through pre-Meiji days of feudal Japan - where many were armed in various ways to protect themselves. And even still today, this model society has its flaws - stabbings are still going up, and the rape incidents are getting to the point where women have separate rail cars and travel in packs to hunt rapists or molestors for extortion. So it can't be the guns that are at fault. It must be the human psyche itself.

As such, let's take a close look at the UN's claims. Yes, small arms are the "weapon of choice" for conflicts - which is a rather mindless statement when analyzed. What is the most common, numerically, component of any armed service? The dogface grunt infantryman. What does he carry? A rifle or a handgun most often. Wars are fought around the infantry - the armor are there for point-assault agaist defense lines or hard targets, and the infantry follows to take the land. The air is there to provide high-speed, wide ranging support - to the infantryman. So yes, there are far more Joe Troopers than there are tanks and aircraft - especially in the poorer countries, where an air force can be counted on ONE hand. In effect, their statement is rather like saying cars are the vehicle of choice for drivers. Pointless and circular.

The UN wishes to describe small arms - the Ruger Blackhawk your uncle goes hunting with, the lever-action rifle and single-action revolvers your cousin participates in Cowboy Shooting with, the compact Glock your sister has to protect herself, the shotgun your father shoots trap and skeet with, the AR-15 your friend does target shooting with, the bolt-action rifle your son bagged his first deer with - as "weapons of mass destruction" because they kill more people on most years than did the Hiroshima bombing. Then, by those rights, would not knives, again? Or vehicles, since drunk driving is often touted as the number-one cause of death for teens? Or if firearms are supposed to be "weapons of mass destruction", does this mean that a country may respond with its own weapoms of mass destruction and launch nuclear assaults in response to firefight border incursions?

Absurdity, yes, but I'm simply going down the path the original statment creates.

Why is the United Nations so agitated and hell bent for leather on how "evil" guns are? Why are they so dead-set on stripping them away from you and all your fellow countrymen and humans? The UN declares a summit on the "illicit trade of firearms" and then makes scarily blanket statements like referring to a worldwide total of five hundred million small arms worldwide while discussing "the problem". Does the UN want to eliminate all firearm ownership? And let's remember one more number - just who are they targeting? Out of all 500,000,000 firearms, including all police- and military-owned guns...free US citizens legally own over 140 million. That's no small chunk of the world's guns, at all - and with those 140 million plus firearms, just who is the UN aiming itself at?

And again...WHY? It's not the safety issue - or else, America with 280 million people and 140 million guns would literally be depopulated. It's not the crime issue, look at countries without guns and tell me you're perfectly safe. Is there some political agenda at work here, that the UN wants to get rid of "the teeth of liberty" in America?

Like I said before, we are the last true bastion of freedom and firearms ownership - and they go hand ni hand, in no small way. Lose one, like many many other countries, and you lose the other. And let us hope that America retains her teeth too, along with the spine this country has suddenly shown, and continues to stare down the United Nations in whatever political scheme they are working on.

Three cheers for LIBERTY!
Hip Hip! Hurrah!
Hip Hip! Hurrah!
Hip Hip! Hurrah!