NationStates Jolt Archive

Please vote on a resolution concerning the ownership of handguns. Just type in "handgun" in the search engine and the one that appears is mine. Protect your citizens! Ban handgun ownership!

If we ban guns one of two things will happen:

- Only outlaws will have guns
- Only the government will have guns

So honest law abiding citizens will be trapped between a force that wants to kill them for money, and a force that wants to kill them for a greater good, with no way of defending themselves.

well put global market. banning handguns is the first distinct step in putting the criminals in charge and making them unstoppable.

If you can't control your gun, you shouldn't be firing it.

Guns don't kill people. I kill people. :roll:

Guns don't kill people. I kill people. :roll:

Caesar kills people too!

Guns don't kill people. I kill people. :roll:

Caesar kills people too!

The salad guy?

Guns don't kill people. I kill people. :roll:

Caesar kills people too!

The salad guy?

Like noble Cato and his Senate Laws,
he sits attentive to his own applause...

And by the way Caesar Salad comes from a French chef in the 1800s who was named Caesar. It has nothing to do with Gaius Julius Caesar.

Anyone who wants to own or use a gun should not be allowed to do so.

Anyone who wants to own or use a gun should not be allowed to do so.

So .... when you rob them of their money they will be powerless. Gotcha.

Hrmm how does not owning a gun make you powerless? If your only solution to petty crime is to shoot criminals then you clearly should not be allowed to own a gun. Anyway everyone knows that property is theft.

Also TGM I notice your nation has improved somewhat since I was last here. Though being a "left-leaning college state" and regulating business doesn't seem to go so well with the whole free market thing you keep going on about.

Guns of any sort are a necessary, immediate step to prevent petty and/or more serious crimes committed in situations where the proper authorities would not have time to react properly and adequately. A more long-term solution would be to strike crime at its roots by giving more money to areas like education and social welfare, but for most nations such policies are still in the making and have not yet taken root. Therefore the immediate protection from crime is, as I said, a necessary evil.

Teachers should be told to pack a weapon while in school, this would curb school violence.

Thanks for your time,
Charlton Heston

:roll:

Anyone who wants to own or use a gun should not be allowed to do so.

So .... when you rob them of their money they will be powerless. Gotcha.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth wonder how many times your gun saved your money? Dosen't having a gun just to save your money kinda put your life at risk if the criminal also has a gun?

Hrmm how does not owning a gun make you powerless? If your only solution to petty crime is to shoot criminals then you clearly should not be allowed to own a gun.

What? How does not owning a gun make you powerless? When someone else pulls out a gun and aims it at you, you don't have a chance in hell of escaping in case the gunman is a bad shot. Have you ever seen the Indiana Jones movies? Remember when Indy was faced down by a hulking Arab with a huge sword? Remember how Indy whipped out a gun and killed the Arab while there was a good distance between them? I don't care how skilled you are at unarmed combat. As soon as a gun is aimed at you, your skills are worthless. In movies the guy who knows martial arts only kicks the collective ass of the bad guys with guns is because the good guy is supposed to win. I would like to know what YOU would do if someone aimed a gun at you and you were unarmed.

Anyway everyone knows that property is theft.

Really. I did not know that. Enlighten me.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth wonder how many times your gun saved your money? Dosen't having a gun just to save your money kinda put your life at risk if the criminal also has a gun?

What if you didn't have a gun and the criminal just took your money then killed you? If someone is going to shoot me I'm taking them down with me. I'm going to get a well placed shot of my own before I die.

Had you not considered that a criminal is far less likely to shoot someone who is unarmed and not a threat to them? Ok so maybe that means they get away with stealing your things (should they evade the police anyway) but at least everyone is still alive.
Of course when you implement the social policies to deal with crime you don't even have that problem.

The right to protect ones own person, and one's family or posessions, Is an absolute.
Theft, and Murder, are close cousins. Both are declarations of war on a person. If you Murder, you deprive a someone of their life. If you steal from them, you deprive them of their ability to live. If someone can consider you of so little importance as to steal from you, it is a very near step to depriving you of your life. They have sunk to the point of detatched selfishnes; if it will assist them in whatever they want, they will do it.

(With apologies to John Locke)

The right to protect ones own person, and one's family or posessions, Is an absolute.
Theft, and Murder, are close cousins. Both are declarations of war on a person. If you Murder, you deprive a someone of their life. If you steal from them, you deprive them of their ability to live. If someone can consider you of so little importance as to steal from you, it is a very near step to depriving you of your life. They have sunk to the point of detatched selfishnes; if it will assist them in whatever they want, they will do it.

(With apologies to John Locke)

Nonsense. As a general rule people who steal are the people who have nothing. Of course there are exceptions, art/artefact thieves normally have a modest lifestyle before offending, but they avoid conflict and are generally unarmed. Your local grocery store is not a likely target for such a thief, and would be robbed by desperate drug addicts, homless persons or people from socially deprived backgrounds. It is not a case that they don't care about the life of their victim, few of these robbers want to be murderers, but they believe that their need is greater.

Would you be willing to kill someone because they are desperate? Would youi shoot someone for trying to rob you? Even if they didn't pull out a gun?

Oh yeah, most of you are Americans, so you probably would (blatant racist comment).

Hrmm how does not owning a gun make you powerless? If your only solution to petty crime is to shoot criminals then you clearly should not be allowed to own a gun. Anyway everyone knows that property is theft.

That's interesting...your Government already takes 100% of the income earned by workers...if it sounds like theft, and looks like theft, and feels like theft...it's theft. Don't lecture anyone about theft with that track record.

My handguns have yet to injure, harm, or kill anyone.

Guns don't kill people. I kill people. :roll:

Caesar kills people too!

The salad guy?

You mean Paul Newman?

The Free Land of Tipayimisoowin would like to point out that gun control is, surprise surprise, a national issue. Why do we say that? Because the other day, three of our citizens were killed in a suburban killing spree, and it was brought up as an issue under that funky little tab called... what was it? Oh yeah ... "Issues." Imagine that. If any nation tries to force its views on gun control (or lack thereof) down the throat of the FLOT, that nation can expect an extremely warm welcome... in the form of a red-hot fire poker strategically passed through the anal canal to give them that warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

Sarcastically,
The FLOT

[quote=Delucca]The right to protect ones own person, and one's family or posessions, Is an absolute.
Theft, and Murder, are close cousins. Both are declarations of war on a person. If you Murder, you deprive a someone of their life. If you steal from them, you deprive them of their ability to live. If someone can consider you of so little importance as to steal from you, it is a very near step to depriving you of your life. They have sunk to the point of detatched selfishnes; if it will assist them in whatever they want, they will do it.

(With apologies to John Locke)

Nonsense. As a general rule people who steal are the people who have nothing. Of course there are exceptions, art/artefact thieves normally have a modest lifestyle before offending, but they avoid conflict and are generally unarmed. Your local grocery store is not a likely target for such a thief, and would be robbed by desperate drug addicts, homless persons or people from socially deprived backgrounds. It is not a case that they don't care about the life of their victim, few of these robbers want to be murderers, but they believe that their need is greater.

Would you be willing to kill someone because they are desperate? Would youi shoot someone for trying to rob you? Even if they didn't pull out a gun?
\quote]


I don't care what their mindset is. Their conditions and whatever they happen to be thinking about at the time do not determine whether or not theft is moral. What kind of a fool would justify theft in this way? Who could be so utterly stupid as to utter this insanity? It's ludicrous.

I am very partisan on this issue. Several years ago I purchased my first handgun, a .22, although for admittedly stupid reasons (a girl I liked was involved in a local gun club; although I had always had an interest in guns it was more of a passing interest, and I never considered actually buying one until then). I kept the gun locked in a drawer next to my bed.

About a year and a half after I purchased it I woke up to the distinctive creaking sound my front door makes when it opens. Grabbing and loading my gun, I went downstairs to investigate. Two people -- one a man I didn't recognize, the other a neighborhood teen -- were standing in my living room with the front door open. As soon as they saw the gun in my hand, they bolted, no shots fired.

(Suburban Maryland is not what it used to be. Crime around here is skyrocketing, and although it's one of the most difficult states in which to legally get a gun, it's veritably impossible to protect your assets without them).

So I defended my property thanks to gun ownership. I didn't notify the police; in a state that's turned into the American equivalent of a Nazi ghetto, it's not a wise idea to let the police know you were prepared to defend yourself with force.

Only allow guns to those that serve in the countries military. If anyone else is caught with a gun then they will be punished. This allows most of the population to own a gun and also ensures they know how to use it.

The Free Land of Tipayimisoowin would like to point out that gun control is, surprise surprise, a national issue. Why do we say that? Because the other day, three of our citizens were killed in a suburban killing spree, and it was brought up as an issue under that funky little tab called... what was it? Oh yeah ... "Issues." Imagine that. If any nation tries to force its views on gun control (or lack thereof) down the throat of the FLOT, that nation can expect an extremely warm welcome... in the form of a red-hot fire poker strategically passed through the anal canal to give them that warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

Sarcastically,
The FLOT

We the People's Republic Of Amyth experienced a similar problem the other day. We responded by outlawing all guns from our nation. So, due to the lack of handguns, we too must resort to using a red-hot fire poker to defend our country from any gun toting freaks who wish to invade our beautyful crime free land and distribute free guns to all our citizens.

Death awaits you all with nasty, sharp, pointy teeth...

gun control is always a contentious issue, so in vikingslavia we solved the problem quite easily.... we put in compulsory military service, so everyone was trained to use a gun, then we made the householders right to defend his home sacrosanct, and made sure that the law would not compensate people involved in criminal acts.

The end result was a 50% reduction in crime overnight. We then added a law stating that persons in reciept of firearms injuries would be detained whilst under treatment until the cause of the injury was determined ti the satisfaction of the law, and as all doctors ect, are forced to declare this, and all doctors stripped of qualifications are imediatly forces to work as prison medical orderlies, this resulted in a further reduction of domestic crime and gun crime as a whole of 90%

Vikingslavia has no gun control laws, but also posesses a very low rate of gun crime, because not only does the law protect us, but the police force is equipped with military rifles that exceed the power of civilian weapons 10 fold. And the police force is not afraid to use them, and the people know this....

We don't ban handguns, but we regulate and license out handguns. We don't have very violent situations. We don't wanna remove anymore freedoms-we already force people to vote during elections.

Anacanapuna's Constitution and Bill of Rights forbids this type of legislation.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

See Anacanapuna's objection to ICC.

Hrmm how does not owning a gun make you powerless? If your only solution to petty crime is to shoot criminals then you clearly should not be allowed to own a gun. Anyway everyone knows that property is theft.

That's interesting...your Government already takes 100% of the income earned by workers...if it sounds like theft, and looks like theft, and feels like theft...it's theft. Don't lecture anyone about theft with that track record.

My handguns have yet to injure, harm, or kill anyone.

I know! And I can imagine Wolomy now saying "but it's for a good cause."

Ugh, a robber with a conscience. Nothing's worse!! At least your garden variety robber can be satisfied! The welfare-state will rob you and convince itself that it's doing the right thing! Tyranny springs eternal!

In an emergency session of the Global Market Senate, a bill to fight against gun control in the UN has been passed, 216-9.

We announce our resounding opposition to this bill.

While the High Council of Nevermoore has banned ownership of firearms for everyone except police, military, and private government-endorsed security firms we will NOT endorse this proposal. This issue is for individual governments to decide, not us.

Firearms are not needed to protect yourself in Nevermoore. The police are highly effective and the citizen bar-coding network monitors the vitals and location of every legal citizen. The High Council can tell who's f###ing who, so we can MOST definitely find out who steals or commits murder. Once it is confirmed you have committed a crime there is no escaping the police forces, which are paramilitary and highly trained and armed.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

While the High Council of Nevermoore has banned ownership of firearms for everyone except police, military, and private government-endorsed security firms we will NOT endorse this proposal. This issue is for individual governments to decide, not us.

Firearms are not needed to protect yourself in Nevermoore. The police are highly effective and the citizen bar-coding network monitors the vitals and location of every legal citizen. The High Council can tell who's f###ing who, so we can MOST definitely find out who steals or commits murder. Once it is confirmed you have committed a crime there is no escaping the police forces, which are paramilitary and highly trained and armed.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

So... you lower crime by violating your citizens' fundamental rights and reducing your country to a callous fascist-ish police state, when letting the right to bear arms would achieve the same thing?

And you destroy your people's liberty to give them the illusion of safety, if that? Come to think of it, I'd feel safer with the Serial Killers.

So... you lower crime by violating your citizens' fundamental rights and reducing your country to a callous fascist-ish police state, when letting the right to bear arms would achieve the same thing?

We have violated nothing, all citizens of Nevermoore are allowed to go about their lives, but they must make certain sacrifices to maintain safety and efficiency. People have economic freedom and a reasonable amount of civil rights, but political freedoms and certain civil rights that exist in other nations have been given up to maintain prosperity. The police are simply in place to enforce the laws of our nation.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

OOC: What do you expect from a corporate police state?

So... you lower crime by violating your citizens' fundamental rights and reducing your country to a callous fascist-ish police state, when letting the right to bear arms would achieve the same thing?

We have violated nothing, all citizens of Nevermoore are allowed to go about their lives, but they must make certain sacrifices to maintain safety and efficiency. People have economic freedom and a reasonable amount of civil rights, but political freedoms and certain civil rights that exist in other nations have been given up to maintain prosperity. The police are simply in place to enforce the laws of our nation.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

OOC: What do you expect from a corporate police state?

My economy is still better than yours. Your "sacrifices to maintain prosperity" aren't working too well.

A high quality of life means prosperity and freedom. Having just one and not the other is still bad.

My economy is still better than yours. Your "sacrifices to maintain prosperity" aren't working too well.

A high quality of life means prosperity and freedom. Having just one and not the other is still bad.

Emilia groans and shifts in her seat.

Listen, we have not told you how to run your nation, do not tell us how we should run ours. Nevermoore does not care about your nation's views on high qualities of life or any other little tenets of your culture you can spout at us.

If you would like to say how your country is run, that is fine, just do not pass it off like we should be like you.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

My economy is still better than yours. Your "sacrifices to maintain prosperity" aren't working too well.

A high quality of life means prosperity and freedom. Having just one and not the other is still bad.

Emilia groans and shifts in her seat.

Listen, we have not told you how to run your nation, do not tell us how we should run ours. Nevermoore does not care about your nation's views on high qualities of life or any other little tenets of your culture you can spout at us.

If you would like to say how your country is run, that is fine, just do not pass it off like we should be like you.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

Then at least give your citiznes the right to leave your country.

I will welcome any who wish to my country.

If we ban guns one of two things will happen:

- Only outlaws will have guns
- Only the government will have guns

So honest law abiding citizens will be trapped between a force that wants to kill them for money, and a force that wants to kill them for a greater good, with no way of defending themselves.

Yeah, look at Britain, since they banned hand guns, shootings of innocents by criminals have gone up 1000%. Oh wait, it seems I'm wrong on that point. And do you not think that if the 'government wants to get you', they'll have better ways than shooting you? Like locking you up in Guantanamo without trial, as a possible example.

If we ban guns one of two things will happen:

- Only outlaws will have guns
- Only the government will have guns

So honest law abiding citizens will be trapped between a force that wants to kill them for money, and a force that wants to kill them for a greater good, with no way of defending themselves.

Yeah, look at Britain, since they banned hand guns, shootings of innocents by criminals have gone up 1000%. Oh wait, it seems I'm wrong on that point. And do you not think that if the 'government wants to get you', they'll have better ways than shooting you? Like locking you up in Guantanamo without trial, as a possible example.

1) Look at Switzerland. Just about everyone has a gun and teh violent crime rate is close to zero. Guns don't change crime rates. That's more of a country-country basis.
2) If everyone has a gun the government is less likely to lock more people up in Guantanamo base without trial.

I don't support that or the Patriot Act. I'm NOT a conservative. If anything, the abuses of the current administration are an excuse to have more privately-owned guns.

In every nation in the real world that has banned guns crime has increased not decreased. Yes, gun related murders go down, but the murder rate either increases or remains the same. In areas where gun controlls are relaxed, crime goes down. Property crime and "hot" burglaries always increase. These are simply the facts. All the "feel good" legislating pi equal to three nonsense in the world does not alter those facts.

In every nation in the real world that has banned guns crime has increased not decreased. Yes, gun related murders go down, but the murder rate either increases or remains the same. In areas where gun controlls are relaxed, crime goes down. Property crime and "hot" burglaries always increase. These are simply the facts. All the "feel good" legislating pi equal to three nonsense in the world does not alter those facts.

and of course you have some evidence to back up these "facts"?

In his new book, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," economist John Lott reveals some startling findings.

Lott studied the FBI's annual crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties from '77 through '92 and other data through '94.

His findings show that the "states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes." Furthermore, in concealed-carry states, "The number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%." Also, "Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%."

I don't think there is a correlation between crime rate and gun ownership.

I never claimed that more guns means less crime. But more guns is good because then you can defend yourself against crime and the government.

In his new book, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," economist John Lott reveals some startling findings.

Lott studied the FBI's annual crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties from '77 through '92 and other data through '94.

His findings show that the "states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes." Furthermore, in concealed-carry states, "The number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%." Also, "Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%."

You said in your other post that "In every nation in the real world that has banned guns crime has increased not decreased" but your only source is of American counties. Not other nations. The US is a unique environmen when it comes to guns, and the rest of the world is still baffled as to why.