Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News SIFTA - Arms Trade Treaty

  1. May 17, 2009 #1
    lol - yes it's another gun control thread. but with a particular question about a particular treaty.

    Some people seem to go ballistic when this issue is debated, stating that it is against the 2'nd amendment.
    I don't see it as an attack on legal gun ownership, other than a slippery slope argument.

    Can someone point out ( other than Lou Dobbs ) how it's so terrible an idea?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 17, 2009 #2
    I understand the reasoning behind it but it's a terrible idea. Basically, you are allowing other governments to have information on US citizens that are not criminals. It's absolutely rediculous. And people thought the last administrations wiretapping was wrong.

    Restricting the sale of firearms outside of the US, sure. But, subjecting US citizens that never even leave US soil to international law is complete BS. An international registry? Hell no. First it's guns, then what? Slippery slope? This is a cliff.
  4. May 17, 2009 #3
    I not sure what information you mean.
    Are you saying that if you want to sell a bunch of arms to another country you should be able to do it anonymously?

    The products do.
    Are you saying that products that leave the US should not be subject to international laws?
  5. May 17, 2009 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    The products might. That's the difference.
  6. May 17, 2009 #5
    I must be slow this morning. I don't see what you're pointing out.
  7. May 17, 2009 #6
    Read my post again and I apologize if I wasn't clear. By "information" I'm speaking about the US gun registry being handed over to an international gun registry.

    No I'm not saying that if I want to sell a bunch of arms to another country it should be anonymous. What this treaty says is that the fact that I'm a US registered gun owner that that information should be available to other countries. It's bad enough I have to be registered to my own government (topic of another discussion).

    And finally, no, I am not saying that products that leave the US should not be subject to international laws.
  8. May 17, 2009 #7
    Thanks for the follow up drankin.
    I think I may be getting confused about the difference between an individual buying a legal firearm for personal use, and an organization wanting to sell arms abroad for profit.
    I didn't notice any clear reference in the outline about your concern, and I also didn't notice any clause about the lumping of the two registries together. Could you please point these out for me?
    It's a work in progress and I agree that those are points that should be addressed as it gets fleshed out.

    I am under the impression that the proposed international registry would be for dealers, as opposed to individual citizen ownership. And in that, I am all for knowing who is selling what, to whom and where.
    Americans as well as Canadians are getting killed with weapons that were provided by someone, from somewhere.
    Where do these pirates and insurgents get RPG's ! Ebay?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2009
  9. May 17, 2009 #8
    The RPG is a Russian weapon. RPGs are not manufactured in North America.

    "Article 6 deals with implementation at the international level, requiring the establishment of an International Registry of
    International Arms Transfers. It also provides that Contracting Parties shall submit to the International Registry an annual
    report on arms transfers from or through their territory
    or subject to their authorization and that the International Registry
    will publish annual and other periodic reports as appropriate on international arms transfers. Specific details of Contracting
    Parties’ reporting obligations as well as any additional international implementation measures may be addressed in
    protocols to the Convention."

    There you go, Alfi.
  10. May 17, 2009 #9
    thanks, I interrupted territory as country.
    As in It's a good idea to know that 25 guns came from A to B then on to C
    The guns went through territory B and that is something that should be traced.

    Though I still don't see how this has much to do with private ownership. Just sales.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2009
  11. May 17, 2009 #10
    I think you might be misreading that drankin. It doesn't say anything about arms transfers within or into their territory. The way I'm reading that (and the way I hope it was intended) was that they would provide a report of the arms leaving the country (whether they were locally made or not), while leaving internal control/reporting up to the individual parties.
  12. May 17, 2009 #11
    I wonder if the following would be acceptable:

    Gun owners in the international registry are identified only by an encrypted code, and only the country of origin has access to the decryption key to convert the code into a persons name, address, etc and will only do the decrypting if it is warranted by the circumstances.

    Something similar can, and should in my opinion, be used inside the US to protect the privacy of gun owners e.g. a judge would look at the evidence and grant the authorization to decrypt the ownership information for a weapon. That way the registry is only used to track guns back to people, and can't be used as a list of people who are suspects by virtue of their gun ownership.
  13. May 17, 2009 #12
    You may be right on that. The wording should be a little more specific if they want the US to buy into it.

    I really don't think this is a treaty the US should bother with anyhow. Arms are prevailant here but arms trade from the US borders is not. The mexican border is certainly something that needs to be addressed but I don't see why we need an international treaty to fix that. The laws are in place, they just need to be enforced.
  14. May 17, 2009 #13
    I keep seeing the phase 'gun owners' in regards to the topic. It confuses me.
    Everything I read in the framework is for the sales and manufacturing of arms.
    Illicit Manufacturing of And Trafficking of arms to be specific.
    I still fail to see how this treaty would have anything to do with honest gun owners.

    Would this treaty be more palatable to people if it only covered the other items listed?
    As in only the large items as defined in sec iii and iv ( bolded by me )

    Article 7
    [Definitions xix]
    For the purpose of this Convention “Arms” shall refer to:
    i) All items listed on the munitions list of the Wassenaar Arrangement on
    Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and
    Technologies. i
    ii) Small Arms including revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines,
    sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns
    iii) Light Weapons including heavy machine guns; hand held-under barrel and
    mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns
    mounted), portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles (sometimes mounted);
    portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems (sometimes
    mounted); portable launchers of anti-aircraft systems; mortars of calibers
    less than 100 mm.

    iv) Ammunition and Explosives including cartridges (rounds) for small arms
    and shells and missiles for light weapons; mobile containers with missiles
    or shells for single action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems, anti-personnel
    and anti-tank hand grenades; landmines; and explosives.

    Are these items (that I would imagine are not used for personal defence like a hand gun), at issue? Or is it just the inclusion of the small arms that gives people hesitation?
  15. May 17, 2009 #14
    Why would we bind ourselves to this treaty? It doesn't involve the US. We don't manufacture and distribute AK-47s and RPG's, which are the primary weapons pirates and Al Qaeda run around with. Why bind ourselves to international regulations that have the capacity to extradite US citizens? Don't we have enough law here to take care of our own criminals?
  16. May 17, 2009 #15
    You guys must be making and exporting something to rank #1 on the list

    From the original link: http://armstradetreaty.org/att/why.we.need.an.att.pdf
    page 5

    Leading Arms Exporters
    United States
    United Kingdom
    South Africa
    (CRS Report 2003, pp. 75-81)
  17. May 17, 2009 #16
    Well, that is a good point. The arms we export obviously aren't the problem. We definatly do not export AK-47s, FALs, RPGs which are the weapons of Al Qeada, pirates, etc. We don't need a treaty on the weapons we export. (I'm curious of what these particular arms are that make us #1).
  18. May 17, 2009 #17
    And take a look at distributor #2! Russia, the designer of the AK-47, and RPG! We aren't the nation that needs to tie our hands with a treaty. Apparently our system does not lend itself to exporting arms to the criminal element abroad.
  19. May 17, 2009 #18
    So there would be no fear of innocent American manufacturers having information released to an International registry then.
    I'm not quite so convinced of that, but if no one looks no one will know.
  20. May 17, 2009 #19
    Alfi, that is not a reason to enter into a international treaty. US manufactured firearms are not the weapon of use by pirates and Al Qaeda. You are arguing "why not", I'm arguing why commit to a treaty that is not relavent? Why bind your country to a treaty that it has no need of? And, potentially allow an outside entity prosecute citizens of your own country?
  21. May 17, 2009 #20
    I would imagine a good portion of that are hunting and sport shooting rifles to Canada and the rest of the western world.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook