Talk:Rebecca Peters

Criticism from firearms advocates

She is a human rights abuser who hates personal freedoms.[1].

Can we say "human rights abuser"? --Wing Nut 18:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ref the anon gave reads as follows:

Rebecca Peters

Rpeters@sorosny.org

Rebecca Peters was Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control, which campaigned to tighten Australia's gun laws in the 1990s. Her research and advocacy helped bring about sweeping changes, including uniform gun laws across the eight states, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year-long buyback that destroyed nearly 700,000 weapons. Among the awards she received was the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal, her country's highest human rights honor.

A lawyer and journalist, Ms Peters is now a Senior Fellow at the Open Society Institute, the private foundation funded by George Soros. For the past two years she directed the foundation's grants program aimed at reducing gun violence in the USA. She produced the landmark report, Gun Control in the United States: A Survey of State Firearm Laws (OSI, 2000). Currently she is focussing on the global campaign against the proliferation of small arms.

Nothing in there about hating personal freedoms. --Wing Nut 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These criticisms keep popping up. I personally agree with them but of course it's ridiculous to vandalise articles with POV stuff. Perhaps it might be worth considering a referenced statement with words to the effect of: her efforts in this area have attracted strong criticism from blah blah blah (e.g. NRA) who argue that blah blah blah. This might need to be balanced with some praise from other quarters. --Russell E 05:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Peters, UN and IANSA

• "She has been criticized by the National Rifle Association in the United States, which believes that Rebecca Peters, along with the United Nations, wishes to "strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection" via gun-ownership by "banning civilian ownership of firearms". The U.N. maintains that it has no desire to attempt to outlaw gun ownership in any country."

I have the edited transcript of the Great Gun Debate posted by IANSA on their website and a copy of the DVD of the entire debate distributed by the NRA.

The Great UN Gun Debate from the Library of Kings College London 2004, MOTION: "Should the United States Senate Support the Proposed UN Treaty that Bans Private Ownership of Guns?" Moderated by British TV personality Paul Lavers, Pro: Director of IANSA, Rebecca Peters, Con: Head of NRA ILA, Wayne LaPierre, aired on US pay TV from October 20-30 2004.

Rebecca Peters: "Mr LaPierre has referred to Australia and the UK as having lost the right to have guns for self-defence. That was never the case. Most developed countries do not sanction the ownership of guns with the intention of killing another person. The laws changed in Australia and the UK. That made no difference to the question of whether you were allowed to have guns for self-defense. You were not allowed to have guns for self-defense. If you had a gun for self-defense you were breaking the law."

Rebecca Peters: "Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands...." Moderator: "Let's take it another step. What types of firearms do you think American citizens should be able to own? What exact type?" Rebecca Peters: "....I think Americans who hunt -- and who prove that they can hunt -- should have single shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they're hunting...."

Rebecca Peters to a UK handgun target shooter during Q&A from the audience: "Times change. I know that pistol shooting used to be a sport that was allowed in the UK and it no longer is. I am sad for you. I suppose if you miss your sport, take up another sport, take up a sport that does not require a weapon designed for the sole specific purpose of killing another human being."

Rebecca Peters made it clear in the 2004 debate that she and IANSA wanted to lobby the UN to ban all firearms within the United States except single shot hunting rifles with a range less than 100 yards, and limit those rifles to hunters who were licensed, registered and proved themselves to the satisfaction of international authority. By 2006 the UN distanced itself from the goals of IANSA in respect to restricting private ownership within nations.

The first two quotes are extracted from the IANSA posting of an edited transcript of the debate. The third quote to the target shooter was transcribed by myself from the DVD video of the complete debate.Naaman Brown (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Selecting choice quotes out of a long debate would be cherry picking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be; but if those quotes are representative of her position, then they might be used to support that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Try adding "representative" quotes picked from the public remarks of Waybe LaPierre that haven't been reported in secondary sources to his bio and see how quickly they're deleted. Hell, they're deleted even if they get widespread attention. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)