NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a problem with the "Gunman Kills Three" issue. There are only the following options:

1) Limit guns to police
2) Ban guns completly
3) Censor video games

I cannot agree with any of these. I am strongly opposed to censoring video games because they are said to be the root of all violence. I do not want to ban guns nor completly limit them to non-civilian use. There should be a 4th option that states something to the effect of not limiting guns but not cracking down on video games.

Just dismiss it. That's what I do.

This is a pretty common problem. It's a kinda one sided issue, and I, like VX Man here, just dismiss it. I wish they would add one that says something like:
"These things happen, and they're terrible and sad, but people have the right to own them." says hunting enthusiast @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Perhaps we should require stiffer criteria for owning guns, like criminals cant."

I do just dismiss it but I don't like dimissing issues.

Here's what I think about it:

All the issue responses are a bit outside the norms to one degree or another. This one is just .. a bit more extreme then normal. If you want a choice that tightens gun control laws, pick 1. I realize limiting to police and military is a bit extreme, but it has the same effect as tighter gun control laws, just to a higher degree (i.e it limits personal freedoms, increases saftey, and hurts the arms manufaturing industry are probably the effects). On the other hand, the 3rd choice has about the same effects as the 4th choice Gurguvungunit suggested, except that it hurts free speech.
But then. think about it like this: 'The public' (read: the media) will want to blame someone in any country in which 'Gunman kills three' will become an issue at all. So you have three choices: You can blame the regulations being to loose, you can blame the guns themselves, or you can blame the violence on TV. And whichever you blame, it's gonna hurt that thing.

Here's what I think about it:

All the issue responses are a bit outside the norms to one degree or another. This one is just .. a bit more extreme then normal. If you want a choice that tightens gun control laws, pick 1. I realize limiting to police and military is a bit extreme, but it has the same effect as tighter gun control laws, just to a higher degree (i.e it limits personal freedoms, increases saftey, and hurts the arms manufaturing industry are probably the effects). On the other hand, the 3rd choice has about the same effects as the 4th choice Gurguvungunit suggested, except that it hurts free speech.
But then. think about it like this: 'The public' (read: the media) will want to blame someone in any country in which 'Gunman kills three' will become an issue at all. So you have three choices: You can blame the regulations being to loose, you can blame the guns themselves, or you can blame the violence on TV. And whichever you blame, it's gonna hurt that thing.

The annoying thing about these limited choices is that they all have negative consequences for your nation. Still, the cycnicism behind that realization is amusing; it's all like a big smirking joke. Annoying but funny.

The issue-writing convention is that there is no "right" choice - every choice must have some unintended, perhaps undesirable consequence, as this is what actually happens in politics, indeed any high-level decision-making. I agree that this is a big smirking joke, but then, were it to be serious, some people would be more readily offended, and it would be an even less true reflection of political life.