So, the UN says that if some lunatic is trying to kill you or me, we don't necessarliy have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. Because the (nanny) state can't guarantee we'll do enough to preserve the right to life of the lunatic. Part of the reason is the idea that “firearms are to be used only in extreme circumstance”. Seems like using a firearm makes any circumstance more extreme.
Case in point:

-Getting the mail.

Me: {whistling} Hey! Cool, the new Popular Mechanics!

No firearm. Not extreme.

-Getting the mail

Me: {whistling} Hey! Cool, the new Popular Mechanics! Hooray [BLAM BLAM].

Extreme.

-Getting the mail from the postman

Me: {whistling} Hey! Cool, the new Popul...
Postman: No whistling near the mail! That's a federal offense and I'm {thumbs USPS patch on chest} a federal employee.
Me: {whist--What's with the gun?
Postman: Prepare to die. [opens fire] BLAM, BLAM].
Me: {ducks behind mailbox} Stop oppressing me you postal lunatic! [Removes holdout pistol from ankle holster and without UN approval, returns fire. [BLAM, {whistle} BLAM, {whistle}, BLAM]

Extremely extreme. Notice how much extremer it got with two guns and the armed response to attempted oppression.

Then they include this gem.

Even when firearm use does not result in death, the injuries caused by firearm shots can be paralyzing, painful, and may immobilize a person for a much longer period of time than would other methods of temporary immobilization.

OUCH, getting shot hurts! Do these buffoons realize many of the people they are ticking off happen to own these firearms capable of inflicting said injuries and lengthy immobilizations? I'm guessing, probably not.

Anyway, I might be personally concerned, if this load of crap were coming from anywhere besides the U.N.