For those of you who live in doubt let's review the evidence.

Before I continue let me give you a little background on Ms. Peters

"Rebecca Peters is the former Director[1] of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). She announced her resignation from IANSA during a United Nations Preparatory Committee in July 2010. She is listed on the IANSA board of directors as of April 2012. The move was seen as a response to concerns that her high visibility and outspoken advocacy to radically decrease private gun ownership worldwide were undermining the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty process.

As chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Peters played a key role in the introduction of stricter gun control and gun confiscation, in Australia, an area in which she remains active today. It is ironic that one of the guns possessed by the perpetrator of The Port Arthur Massacre was a gun which had been handed in for destruction in a previous amnesty in the State of Victoria.

The Umut Foundation says:
“ 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 a move towards uniform gun laws across the eight states ( the laws are still not entirely uniform in 2011 ), 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.

Prior to her work with IANSA, Peters worked for the Open Society Institute, a private foundation funded by George Soros.

"The most expensive kind of violence, is gun violence" - Rebecca Peters, 'Great Gun Debate'

She has been criticized by sporting shooters around the world and 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" and to rid the world of shooting sports."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Peters

For those of you who are not familiar with the Port Arthur shootings I suggest do some more research on that.

As far as Ms. Peters let's go into the IANSA, back to wikipedia.

"United States of America
Main article: Gun politics in the United States

IANSA membership in the United States includes gun control organizations such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[15]
[edit] Funding

IANSA’s work has been supported by funders including the Governments of Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Samuel Rubin Foundation UNICEF, and Christian Aid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Action_Network_on_Small...

Going back to our main point of contention here I bring for information from the 1997 UN Small Arms Treaty and I will point out some key notes.

UN GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT: SMALL ARMS 1997

"This is the 1995 GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT: SMALL ARMS treaty it contains the following:

26. Based on this broad definition and on an assessment of weapons actually used in conflicts being dealt with by the United Nations, the weapons addressed in the present report are categorized as follows:

(a) Small arms:
...
(i) Revolvers and self-loading pistols;

(ii) Rifles and carbines;

(iii) Sub-machine-guns;

(iv) Assault rifles;

(v) Light machine-guns;

(b) Light weapons:

(i) Heavy machine-guns;

Under V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends the following reduction measures:

(b) The United Nations should support, with the assistance of the donor community, all appropriate post-conflict initiatives related to disarmament and demobilization, such as the disposal and destruction of weapons, including weapons turn-in programmes sponsored locally by governmental and non-governmental organizations;

(g) All such weapons which are not under legal civilian possession, and which are not required for the purposes of national defence and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible.

(e) All States should exercise restraint with respect to the transfer of the surplus of small arms and light weapons manufactured solely for the possession of and use by the military and police forces. All States should also consider the possibility of destroying all such surplus weapons;15"

Here is a PDF document from UNIDIR's website on the issue of Small Arms

Small arms and light weapons: the tools used to violate human rights

"Under international human rights law, the state can be held responsible for violations committed with small arms by ... private persons in two situations: when the armed individuals are operating under color of state authority; and when the state fails to act with due diligence to protect human rights."

p. 42

"In addition to preventing violations committed by state agents, human rights law obligates states to use due diligence to prevent harm and to provide remedies for abuses caused by armed individuals and groups. There are more guns in the hands of private persons around the world than there are in the hands of state security forces.14 Private individuals account for about 55% of the total known global stockpile of firearms, a minimum of 305 million guns.15 While the link between accessibility of guns and levels of violence is not absolute, research shows that, in general, high rates of gun ownership are related to increases in the incidence of arms-related violence.16 Such violence includes both intentional and unintentional deaths and injuries. Guns end up in the hands of private persons by various means, including direct commercial sales, private transfers, theft, government sale or transfer, and failure to disarm in post-conflict situations. Tragic incidents of violence by armed individuals in various countries, particularly school killings, have drawn public attention to the problem. Unfortunately, these incidents represent only a small fraction of the deaths and injuries inflicted by individuals with easy access to guns.

Under international human rights law, the state can be held responsible for violations committed with small arms by private persons in two situations: when the armed individuals are operating under color of state authority; and when the state fails to act with due diligence to protect human rights. In the first situation, armed individuals and groups, acting with the express or implicit permission of authorities, are themselves considered to be state agents. Under this theory, the state would be responsible, for example, for failing to prevent, investigate or prosecute vigilante groups or private militias that operate with the tacit or explicit approval of state agents to carry out ethnic or religious massacres, or ‘social cleansing’ of street children."

P 41-42

And you can't forget this little gem here also from UNDIR 2000 Geneva.

UNIDIR Geneva August 2000 removing military weapons from civilian h...

"If a concerted campaign were to be formed to remove such weapons from civilian hands this would have a number of distinct advantages:

-It would be hard for the anti-control lobby to argue against such an initiative - after all who could easily justify the right for civilians to bear arms built for military purposes and thus argue taking automatic and semi-automatic weapons off the streets of cities and out of schools;"