[quote]Negotiations at the UN to achieve a landmark treaty to regulate the conventional arms trade have ended without agreement.
The US, followed by Russia and China, said they needed more time to consider the issues.
The BBC's Barbara Plett at the UN said it was a disheartening end to a month of intense negotiations.
However, the conference chairman said he was confident a treaty could be agreed by the end of the year.
Some delegates accused the US of bowing to domestic pressure from the powerful gun lobby in the run up to presidential elections, our correspondent says.
On Thursday, a bipartisan group of 51 US senators threatened to oppose any agreement that infringed on the constitutional right to bear arms.
Despite the setback, conference chairman Roberto Garcia Moritan said the eventual adoption of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was inevitable.
"I don't have any doubt, because there is a need," he said.
"We need a treaty and we will have a treaty."
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was disappointed at the failure to agree on a treat and called it "a setback".
But he said he was encouraged that countries had agreed to continue pursuing a treaty and pledged his "robust" support.
The negotiations were the result of a six-year campaign by a coalition of non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International and Oxfam.
Amnesty Secretary-General Salil Shetty expressed frustration at the delay.
"With one person dying every minute because of armed violence, there is an imperative for powerful states to lead," he said.
"President Obama has asked for more time to reach an agreement. How much more time does he want?"
The text of the draft resolution is now likely to be sent back to the UN General Assembly in the autumn.
The global arms trade is estimated to be worth between $60bn and $70bn (£40-50bn) per year.
Some 750,000 people are killed by illicit weapons each year.[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19025542[/url]
What a surprise.
Always china russia and the us
sickens me
Was this for civilian arms or military arms?
If this was that proposal to ban civilian arms, good luck getting the US to agree to that.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36975185]Was this for civilian arms or military arms?
If this was that proposal to ban civilian arms, good luck getting the US to agree to that.[/QUOTE]
probably mass production and international sales proliferation
Damned lobbying.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;36975201]probably mass production and international sales proliferation[/QUOTE]
According to the UN's site, it's about regulating the transfer of arms, "from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns".
[quote]Amnesty Secretary-General Salil Shetty expressed frustration at the delay.
"With one person dying every minute because of armed violence, there is an imperative for powerful states to lead," he said.[/quote]
I don't know what this guy is thinking, more regulation of the conventional arms trade won't stop or hinder anything of the sort. If two sides want to have at each other they will find ways to arm themselves easily and there's plenty of lads willing to be of service supplying them, just yesterday I seen a Syrian rebel totting a Styer AUG, how did he get his hands on that one wonders?
[QUOTE=Mabus;36975212]I don't know what this guy is thinking, more regulation of the conventional arms trade won't stop or hinder anything of the sort. If two sides want to have at each other they will find ways to arm themselves easily and there's plenty of lads willing to be of service supplying them, just yesterday I seen a Syrian rebel totting a Styer AUG, how did he get his hands on that one wonders?[/QUOTE]
The treaty outlined rules and the necessity of creating organizations that oversee national and international arms trade. It would at least make the life of illegal arms traders harder, and it would condemn arms trade with countries or groups that commit genocide or other crimes against humanity.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;36975206]Damned lobbying.
According to the UN's site, it's about regulating the transfer of arms, "from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns".[/QUOTE]
Well there you have it folks
Also you guys have to remember that war is a very profitable business, lots of money in murder
Condemnation means nothing but a cocked eyebrow and a tut, its laughable. And when it comes to the trade of illegal arms and ordnance nothing will change, you can create all sorts of task groups and pressure groups and whatnot, on the ground the reality is far from a desk and a list of laws.
[QUOTE=Mabus;36975281]Condemnation means nothing but a cocked eyebrow and a tut, its laughable. And when it comes to the trade of illegal arms and ordnance nothing will change, you can create all sorts of task groups and pressure groups and whatnot, on the ground the reality is far from a desk and a list of laws.[/QUOTE]
Yet doing nothing is far worse.
So Russia denied it because of the shit going down in Syria since this treaty would condemn selling weapons to countries committing crimes against humanity(civilian massacre) and the US denied it due to the close elections.
It was really just a bad time for this treaty.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;36975172]Always china russia and the us
sickens me[/QUOTE]
And (almost) everyone else. European nations probably don't want this treaty either, just that why look bad in the eyes of the public when you can say yes, knowing full well that China, Russia and the US will block it anyway?
I've read up on this treaty, it isn't just about wartime weapons it's about civilian weapons too.
I'm pretty sure someone here on FP posted the article about the United Nations trying to undo our 2nd Amendment, this is that. It hides behind the façade of a global wartime arms treaty but its primary goal is the disarment of civilians
[editline]3:33[/editline]
Don't believe me?
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a-sneaky-control-guns-article-1.1116335[/url]
[url]http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/u-n-s-arms-trade-treaty-why-on-earth-would-we-sign/[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/5/the-un-is-coming-for-your-guns/[/url]
Check out the National Rifle Association's website. They've got a lot of good information and news articles on this UN Arms Treaty.
They're gonna start using italics and bold in their letters to China/Russia/the US now, ohhh nnooo
[QUOTE=latin_geek;36975876]They're gonna start using italics and bold in their letters to China/Russia/the US now, ohhh nnooo[/QUOTE]
they might use ctrl+u too. Oh god no.
[QUOTE=Yersinia;36975874]I've read up on this treaty, it isn't just about wartime weapons it's about civilian weapons too.
I'm pretty sure someone here on FP posted the article about the United Nations trying to undo our 2nd Amendment, this is that. It hides behind the façade of a global wartime arms treaty but its primary goal is the disarment of civilians
[editline]3:33[/editline]
Don't believe me?
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a-sneaky-control-guns-article-1.1116335[/url]
[url]http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/u-n-s-arms-trade-treaty-why-on-earth-would-we-sign/[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/5/the-un-is-coming-for-your-guns/[/url]
Check out the National Rifle Association's website. They've got a lot of good information and news articles on this UN Arms Treaty.[/QUOTE]
Would be nice to have a less biased source. They're mostly speculative articles.
Why would others nations even try to affect national US gun policy? The treaty is aimed at hindering arms trade that puts weapons in the hands of the wrong people. It won't stop it but it's still a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=Yersinia;36975874]I've read up on this treaty, it isn't just about wartime weapons it's about civilian weapons too.
I'm pretty sure someone here on FP posted the article about the United Nations trying to undo our 2nd Amendment, this is that. It hides behind the façade of a global wartime arms treaty but its primary goal is the disarment of civilians
[editline]3:33[/editline]
Don't believe me?
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a-sneaky-control-guns-article-1.1116335[/url]
[url]http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/u-n-s-arms-trade-treaty-why-on-earth-would-we-sign/[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/5/the-un-is-coming-for-your-guns/[/url]
Check out the National Rifle Association's website. They've got a lot of good information and news articles on this UN Arms Treaty.[/QUOTE]
I'm p sure it'll be best for mexico if US civilian arms were not flooding over the border going south.
[QUOTE=Clavus;36976314]Why would others nations even try to affect national US gun policy? The treaty is aimed at hindering arms trade that puts weapons in the hands of the wrong people. It won't stop it but it's still a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
It's the age-old argument. It will stop guns from being used by the wrong people but it hurts the right people as well
Would never have affected the United States anyway because it violates the Constitution, which is this handy little piece of paper that tells us what our government can't do.
It's not like they violate it all the time or anything.
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36976975]It's the age-old argument. It will stop guns from being used by the wrong people but it hurts the right people as well[/QUOTE]
Is that seriously an argument against more regulation on arms trade? "Let's just supply all parties with weapons and they'll figure it out"
[QUOTE=Clavus;36975310]Yet doing nothing is far worse.[/QUOTE]
Doing nothing is more or less all the UN does. Russia and China can easily cockblock any effort the UN puts forth if they see fit, resulting in nothing more than a stern talking to.
When was the last time a stern talking to ever stopped a criminal?
[QUOTE=TestECull;36980956]Doing nothing is more or less all the UN does. Russia and China can easily cockblock any effort the UN puts forth if they see fit, resulting in nothing more than a stern talking to.
When was the last time a stern talking to ever stopped a criminal?[/QUOTE]
The UN does stuff all the time, just as long as it doesn't concern the interests of the P5
[quote]The draft treaty would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists, organized crime or for corrupt practices.[/quote]
Just thought you people might find this interesting.
The UN is so fucking useless. I understand why the infamous "one vote" rule is there, it's just that because of that rule absolutely nothing can ever get done.
[QUOTE=Clavus;36978103]Is that seriously an argument against more regulation on arms trade? "Let's just supply all parties with weapons and they'll figure it out"[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand the argument.
The idea is that banning and prohibiting purchasing firearms will just make the citizen who wants a gun for home defense, to shoot for fun, or anything else unable to obtain it, while people who want to get a gun for more lucrative measures can just get one from an illegal source.
I don't think this treaty has to do with that exactly, but that's what the argument is.
[editline]28th July 2012[/editline]
Also, nobody's supplying anyone with anything. There's a difference between enacting a ban that works on paper and one that works in practice.
This treaty was a crock of shit, it banned the sales of firearms to "non-state entities" and had no recognition, acceptance, or exception of civilian arms from the scope of the treaty. Not to mention it would have cost billions of dollars and done literally NOTHING. To those who disagree, look up the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy]Khyber Pass in Pakistan[/url], there's 10-year-olds making AKs, tell me what measure of gun control can/will stop that.
I don't know why everyone is talking about the veto, this treaty wasn't vetoed it's just that the US, Russia and China didn't sign it and it's pretty much useless without them
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
