View Full Version : Alpers leads anti-gun team to New York conference
Alpers leads anti-gun team to New York conference
Monday June 26, 2006
By Simon O'Rourke
Aucklander Phil Alpers will lead a New Zealand delegation in New York this week to "strongly support" an arms trade treaty being discussed at a United Nations conference.
When the conference opens today Mr Alpers - a foundation member of a 700-strong network called the International Action Network for Small Arms - will help present a petition to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Called the Million Faces petition, it consists of 1 million photos of people around the world calling for a halt to the proliferation of firearms. There are 12,000 New Zealand faces on the petition, which was compiled with the help of Amnesty International and Oxfam.
Mr Alpers said there was no effective, legally binding international control on the small arms trade - this against a backdrop of enough ammunition to kill every person around the world twice.
He said 1000 people were killed each day by guns, fired from weapons that were part of the 640 million small arms in stock across all countries.
Although Mr Alpers has the blessing of Disarmament Minister Phil Goff to lobby for an international arms treaty at the conference - and to push for more stringent measures to control the illicit arms trade - the New Zealand Government has not signed or ratified an existing UN Firearms Protocol.
Other countries not to have signed include the US, Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, France, Iraq and Zimbabwe. In all, 112 have not signed.
Australia is one of the 30 signatories, with Brazil, Canada, Germany and Britain. Countries to have ratified include Belgium, Cambodia, Croatia, Mexico and South Africa - there are 49 in total.
The Firearms Protocol requires committed countries to regulate the manufacture, export, import and transit of firearms. It forces the identification of guns through markings or codes, requiring records to be kept for 10 years.
It also encourages regulation of suppliers of firearms, but it does not provide for regulation of state-to-state gun transfers.
Unlike the the UN's Programme of Action on Small Arms, drafted at the last conference five years ago, the UN Firearms Protocol is legally binding but to date its effectiveness is unclear.
The conference this week is being strongly opposed by American gun lobby group the National Rifle Association.
On its website it lists Mr Alpers as one of the "conspirators" in its "Who's Who of the power brokers behind the UN Global Gun Ban Treaty".
The former television presenter, now Sydney University adjunct associate professor in Public Health, said several reports would be released over the course of the week in New York.
They included a summary of the worldwide impact of the AK47, a case study of women affected by gun violence, and a review of progress by UN member states since the last conference in 2001.
Source: http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10388315
Note parts in bold..
I wonder what it would take to convince the proverbial "they" that a paintball marker shouldn't be included in the definition of a firearm.
If they're going to include bows and slingshots in the definition of firearm then fair enough, but if not then there is no real reason to include them as they are not designed as weapons even to the extent that slingshots or bows are. The sole reason people will include them in the "gun" category is because they happen to look (slightly) more like a gun than the average slingshot (which is debatable on a tourney marker) . They are designed specifically to make a mark, with the speed of the capsule launch existing mainly so that the other party knows they've been tagged. So what if they started life as tools for military simulation - so are most water pistols.
I realise I'm preaching to the converted here
I wonder what it would take to convince the proverbial "they" that a paintball marker shouldn't be included in the definition of a firearm.
Prolly something to do with the 68 calibre cat piercing round also known as a tangy fruit. For all intents and purposes a marker fits every definition of an airgun/firearm (except for the stock marker exemption which the police pretend doesn't exist) and other things which I will not go into on a public forum.
What is worth noting though is that there is a Govt supported anti gun crusade that is hell bent on ratifying international anti small arm treaties (reasons behind arms amendment act III) and that all paintballers should be aware of politics and what is going on behind the scenes. This is driven not by rational thought, but by emotion (alpers has a bad past with firearms, I think a family member was shot from memory and has left him unable to discuss firearms objectively as far as he's concerned firearms are evil, full stop).
Add to this we have a Minister for Disarmament, and it becomes immediately obvious that paintball would make a nice political soft target such as the modified car scene was and the party pill industry is now (not many people involved, but looks good when you ban it)... as a sport we need to increase our understanding of the world around us and how all of this works.
The current leadership within the sport isn't the least bit interested in this unforutantly. There are only a few of us who understand the political world, and only a few of us who know how to deal with politicians (real life ones) - and well, currently our names are dragged through the mud by certain people.
ok, I didn't know they made seperate provision for airguns as opposed to firearms. Worth knowing I guess. How are crossbows/bows and slingshots classed?
And stock marker exemption?
edit: http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/infosheet04.html
- didn't know I could be fined a few grand for annoying the neighbors with paintball gun noise...
And stock marker exemption?
Its in the 1983 Arms Act - its debatable whether its applicable, the NZ police certainly don't think so. You'd be skating on very thin ice if you were to argue it, and really, really need to know what you were talking about.
Master_Blaster
27-06-2006, 00:34
Play this guy at his own game. Start a paintballers organisation that supports his drive. By doing this you actully create a perception that Paintball don't like guns (Do or Don't is not the point). The key point that you will then make is that Paintball guns are not the same as firearms or Air guns even if the law says otherwise. After all why would you petition something that could jeapordise your sport. - A bit of reverse psychology.
How about no.
Cosying up to rabid anti gun campaigners like Mr Alpers is not the way to help paintball (or the freedom of legal firearm owners either).
As the old poem goes:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
(or the freedom of legal firearm owners either).
what one is that?
and damn I HATE* that Poem. It was written by/credited to Lautheran Pastor (and anti-communist and anti-semite) Martin Niemöller** to can be considered a caution about the cost of keeping silent about the descrimination against PEOPLE based on associations not the ability of ownership of some types of property.
**interestingly he described 1933 Nazi policy as a "renewal movement based on a Christian moral foundation", and only objected after Jews who had converted to Chrisitanity were being epelled from the church. heck as late as 5th June 1945 he "never quarrelled with Hitler over political matters, but purely on religious grounds".
makes you wonder as the basis of the quote:
moral standing, and lasting warning to the risks of inaction or
pure self interest once he was being persecuted
have a gander at http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm for a discussion of the beginnings of that quote
Steven
* mainly because it is overused by people to falsely claim religious descrimination by Religious Fundamentalists when their particular brand of idiocy is not allowed to reign
That poem would appear to contradict your own point, MikeE.
That poem would appear to contradict your own point, MikeE.
It is mainly used as an (bad) illustration of 'slippery slope': (in summary)
if we ignore this (minor bad thing, theough what is being discussed is never up their with the Nazi treatment of the Jewish people et al.)
and ignore this
and ignore this
it may effect me in future and will not I feel foolish when people ignore it then
I just get a kick out of people quote mining, without understanding the FULL historical implications/ opinions of the person being quoted (or even if they made the quote)
Steven
ahh...
Well that certainly got you worked up.
The way I interpret that quote is, just because someone isn't doing something that affects your freedoms doesn't mean they won't in the future. Hence NZ Paintball's "ignorance is bliss" treatment of the anti gun movement in NZ, or the suggestion above that we cozy up to them only makes it easier for further freedoms to be taken away from people.
Then again, most of you probably believe in benevolent government, and that goverments are really out to serve the people (and not stay in power through any means neccessary, usually through populist policy such as the banning big bore exhausts, regulating party pills or microchipping dogs - all of which have no real positive effect, reduce freedom and make average joe feel like they are doing something right - similarily with calls to further restrict firearm ownership).
Then again, many of you probably don't keep an eye on the Law and Order select committee to see whats going on with the Arms Amendment # 3, or what international treaties we are signing for firearms control.
And I am not a big fan of the slippery slope argument either.. as its a logical fallacy (i.e. decriminalising homosexuality will turn us into a nation of boys who like boys etc), but one should be aware of whats going on, and not stick their heads in the sand.
ahh...
Well that certainly got you worked up.
and you delightfully dodged the question I asked:
Originally Posted by MikeE
(or the freedom of legal firearm owners either).
Originally Posted by FireFox
what one is that?
and really the point of my rant above is:
if you apply the historical information to the 'quote' it becomes significantly less profound (NOTE this is not me, but rather applying the 1930s opinions of Martin Niemöller into the quote attributed to him):
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I agreed with them.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I agreed with them.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I agreed with them.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
that did not agree with them
but it does support your (MikeE) statement even more:
The way I interpret that quote is, just because someone isn't doing something that affects your freedoms doesn't mean they won't in the future.
by adding the provisio: even if you agree with them you should watch the policy that is going on for any erosion of fundamental human rights.
Steven
Master_Blaster
27-06-2006, 18:10
Dudes!
You live in a paradise, really! I am a South African!
I know what governments can do to you.
Believe me when I say you guys are way OK.
In a country where there is law and order, I really don't mind not having a firearm.
How about living in a country where in the last months I personally know people that were held up at gun point in restaurant, another where their mother was murdered for small change, you get told that you will not do business because of the colour of your skin. This in a post Apartheid country where DEMOCRACY is suppose to rule. Believe me when I say you guys have nothing to bitch about.
So...
Playing the political fence with a guy like that will get you the advantage.
Debating poetry will not save your @$$, you gotta get things done! At least your government still listens when you guys have something to say.
It once again comes down to the same thing. Get yourself organised as a sport. Don't just play the game, play the people that rule you. It won't get better and it won't go away.
As much as it grates me that sport and politics are mixed we as the people do not have a choice. If we want to survive as a sport we have to engage these people.
Because we are in the minority we cannot go out and oppose them. It is just simple maths. We have to be creative in our approach.
I know these are pretty strong views but in my opinion going about this in a clever way will get you further than just down right opposition.
Also understanding on both sides will promote tolorence. This I definately learnt in South Africa.
But have you guys considered that this Alpers guy may not even be interested in guys like us.
"He said 1000 people were killed each day by guns, fired from weapons that were part of the 640 million small arms in stock across all countries."
Maybe these guys are just after the real McCoy due to the killings.
Your government have just conveniently classified PB markers as "guns" because of misunderstanding. Educating them may just change the issue.
Personally I don't have a problem with licensing my PB gun. We have a serious problem in SA with paintball drive-by's and the road sign phenomenon. Such practises will curb the abuse.
The condition however is to have it classified as a sports equipment and not firearms. Same goes for Bows, slingshots and other similar equipment.
WHAT SAY YOU, THE PEOPLE?? :)
Ok! I'll get off my Soap Box now...
Ok.. so lets look at this.
In south africa, you make firearms illegal - who is left with firearms? The criminals and the gangs.
So in essence you've achieved nothing except disarm the general population while leaving the gangs alone.
As for paintball licencing, do you actually think that will stop anything? if so you are very, very niave.
Anyway - theres something on Campbell live now... chances are it will be completely biased and full of loads of incorrect info.
a note on the slippery slope argument: it may be a logical fallacy, but it seems to hold to some extent when tested against actual situations. Rarely to the extremes claimed, and of course it doesn't apply to some situations by their very nature, but it does often hold. Like how lowering the drinking age has in fact led to higher crash statistics in some groups and more hospital admissions for alc poisoning (I'd have to google for that one but I saw it somewhere - it's OT anyway)
If of course you think of it in the "doing A will make B more likely, which will make C more likely..." it makes sense.
Annnnyyway...
How was Campbell Live?
Master_Blaster
29-06-2006, 17:21
OK Mike! You posed the problem. :) What's the solution? :rolleyes:
Relax firearms legislation.
Relax firearms legislation.
So relaxed firearms legislation will solve the mis-use of firearms how?
unless you are talking specifically about relaxing the rules for low energy air guns*. Most people are unable/unwilling to know the difference between these and a real firearm. there is also the issue of clasification and making it hard to target responsibly used paintball guns to avoid them getting caught up in policy designed to solve the mis-use of paintball guns.
This is similar to the 'big bore exhaust' problem, the ownership of 'big bore exhaust' systems was strongly correllated with illegal drag racing, and there was the lack of effort to disentangle the two.** If there had been an effort to seperate responsible use and iresponsible use well in advance then there may have been more success.
For paintball it is realitively easy to disintangle 'responsible'*** and 'irresponsible' use as, unlike a car, a paintball gun is a single use item and can be contained (i.e. kept out use) when not in an area where they can be used properly.
still waiting on evidence of any international argeement/declaration or NZ law that says firearm ownership is a right not a privilage.
Steven
* as opposed to real firearms that go bang and are intended to kill/main the target
**a question from a non-car guy: what purpose does big bore exhausts serve on a car?
*** 'responsible' in the sense that the people that are affected are going to be in the area by choice and not the general public
Burnt Toast
30-06-2006, 08:56
You will not have to register you paintball marker, so don't worry about that (not that you would).
You used to have to register all firearms, but they scrubed that years ago.
Personally I would like to see the return of firearm registration, which by the way never included airguns (paintball markers)
As usual the people who use firearms in a responsible ways are the ones who will be hammered by law changes, if and when they happen (like when I had to reapply for my "lifetime licence")
Mr Alpers for all his good intentions is a storm in a tea cup.
Don't forget target and skeet shooting steven, that doesn't kill anything.
Don't forget target and skeet shooting steven, that doesn't kill anything.
true, I did forget target/skeet sports.
though if you compare a Skeet shooting shot gun to a duck shooting shotgun and they operate/function the same and can be intermixed in useage. my point was 'paintball guns are one use'.
I was more meaning the differentation between a paintball guns and things like AK47s and Uzis (ie Military style semiautomatics and automatics), which the majority of the real international effort is interested in defining and controlling.
Ok.. someone explain how registering firearms will in anyway prevent crime?
Register firearms, and all law abiding citizens might, criminals or peoplelikely to use them in crime will not. So you have a database of firearms that serves no use, unless the government is likely to attempt to disarm the civillian population (German made regestration compulsary pre WWII as did commie russia make of it what you will). Compulsary registration of firearms will prevent as much firearms crime as compulsary registration of dogs will prevent dogs from attacking people.
Then those who object to being treated like criminals by being forced to disclose their arms to good old nanny state become criminals for not registering them. Tell me, if I don't register my arms, and have not hurt anyone in the process, am I any more criminal than the person who does register their arms? If so, give me one good reason why.
It is most definately not a storm in a tea cup when for the first time we have a minister of disarmament/arms control, and govt sponsored delegations featuring mr alpers.
I'm at work at the moment so can't go into it in any detail. I'll be able to provide some info to back up where relaxing firearms legislation has led to reductions in firearms (and non firearms) related crime (in many states of america), where as in countries where restrictions were added (especially jamaica and great britian) the rate of violent crime has increased significantly.
dannefaerd
30-06-2006, 15:01
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/gallery/display/0,2544,243497,00.jpg
Burnt Toast
30-06-2006, 15:21
Ok.. someone explain how registering firearms will in anyway prevent crime?
Well thats easy, it won't.
But who's talking about preventing crime?, you can't stop fuckwits being fuckwits.
As for registering your firearm, well obviously the horse bolted on that one when they stopped doing it 20 years ago (or how ever long ago it was).
building a history of firearms and who has them is not a bad idea, yer the badies have them, but the bad asses of tomorrow don't yet, and having to register them might and I say MIGHT make it that much harder.
(if the P head that shot that Pizza guy in the head had a knife things might have been different)
Say E.G I have to register my firearms, so I do, 10 years or what ever down the track I decide i've had enough of working and turn to a life of crime, which would probably start out small working up to bigger and better things.
Anyhow, I have a run in with the cops at some stage (getting that pissed off doesn't happen over night), the cops see that I have registered firearms so they decide to take them away.
Yer lots of guns and what not will slip through the gaps, but you have to start somewhere.
Quote MikeE
Then those who object to being treated like criminals by being forced to disclose their arms to good old nanny state become criminals for not registering them. Tell me, if I don't register my arms, and have not hurt anyone in the process, am I any more criminal than the person who does register their arms? If so, give me one good reason why.
Mate I struggled with that one when I had to get my new fucken drivers licence (it still burns me) as well as my new Firearms licence both of which were good for at least the next 40 years at the time.
I'm a good driver, so why do I need a new licence?.
If I didn't update my firearms licence I could be done for having firearms.
Edit,
I guess I was trying to compare your registering/crim question to re-licencing, but now that I have properly read what you wrote I see that I got lost somwhere along the way.
So I would say No, your not more of a crim
Sorry burnt toast, not making sense in the last para, care to edit it so we know what the point is you are trying to get across? Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.