By Paul Gallant, Sherry Gallant, Alan J. Chwick, and Joanne D. Eisen
Proponents are expecting that the 50 ratifications needed for entry into force should occur by the end of 2014.
ControlArms ( http://controlarms.org/en/ ) , a non-governmental organization which encourages strong firearm regulation leading to disarmed civilians said, “It creates a new global norm against which states’ practice will be measured, by other states and by international civil society.”
The “global norm” that they refer to will give our home-grown firearm-prohibitionists the impetus to continue regulating our firearms far past the point of silliness —regulating not out of safety considerations— but as part of a disarmament scheme.
Yet each time Obama squints our way, he sells guns and ammo. In fact, he has been dubbed “gun salesman of the year.” Each time we learn of the changing international norm and the threat to our civilian firearm ownership, we Americans go out and buy more guns and ammo. We watch as the demand for concealed-carry licenses rises. We wait as legislators begin to recognize our unity and strength.
While our norm of civilian weapons possession and self-defense continues to grow stronger in America, the UN’s philosophy of civilian disarmament—as the only road to “world peace”—continues to fail miserably, in practice.
One of the major reasons for that failure is the need for self-defense and the fact that firearms are the best tools for self-defense, and the defense of one’s family. The firearm-prohibitionist philosophy of disarmament stems from false premise that the costs of private firearm ownership outweigh their benefits.
That perspective is foolish: the benefits of private firearm ownership far outweigh the costs. And it’s not just Americans who know that.
In Macedonia in 2003, authorities, aided by the UN, attempted to regain control of illegal weapons owned by between 100,000 to 170,000 people. Many NGOs helped publicize an amnesty campaign. After 45 days only 6,400 firearms were collected. Many “awareness activities,” that is, programs designed to frighten citizens about the dangers of gun possession, have been carried out in the region.
“You can imagine yourself as a villager, isolated in the mountains, out of sight of the nearest house . . . . If you’re in trouble, threatened, and the police can’t come to help you because they don’t have a vehicle, then you can’t really be blamed for wanting to hang on to a weapon for your own protection.”
An article entitled Human Rights and Gun Confiscation contains a section dealing with firearm-related surveys in 13 countries, most of them under the auspices of the UN or one of its agencies. And the conclusion of those studies was, overwhelmingly that the people surveyed wanted to retain firearm possession for protection of self, family and business.
Among the article’s other conclusions are:
Voluntary disarmament will generally be possible only after a government has proven that it is able to protect the security of the people to be disarmed. Second, forcible attempts to disarm people who still need guns to defend themselves—including for protection from predatory governments—are likely to lead to massive resistance, and to an escalating cycle of human rights abuses by government forces, and finally, to re-armament by the victim population.
The UN already has the knowledge, whether it wants to admit it or not, that until citizens feel safe—not only from common street felons, but from their police and their own government— disarmament programs will not work, whether their latest effort is called an “Arms Trade Treaty” or any other fancy name it chooses.
We wish to protect our families, and so we will not surrender our arms. Yet we Americans refuse to permit our “leaders” to legislate us into felons, as is happening elsewhere around the world.
So we need to continue to strengthen our norm in order to protect the legality of civilian weapons ownership and carriage, and the use of those weapons for protection.
We authors simply don’t know the future. Will we continue to own our arms legally, or will we be forced to become felons? Can we outlast the strong but faulty new global norm that is on its way towards us?
We must persevere until the UN’s efforts fail one more time. And looking at the UN’s track record, it’s an odds on favor that they will.
About the authors:
Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice optometry and dentistry, respectively, on Long Island, NY. They have collaborated on firearm politics for the past 20 years, and are Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute in Denver, CO. Alan J. Chwick is currently the Managing Coach of the Freeport Junior Club (FJC), at the Freeport NY Revolver & Rifle Association, Freeport, NY. Sherry Gallant has collaborated in their writing for the past few years and has participated in the writing activities of Drs. Gallant and Eisen over the years.
Respective E-Mail addresses are: