NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically if this proposal was granted gun laws would be non-existant. I believe that common sense is better than law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gun laws are there to stop criminals purchasing weapons yes? Why can't it be up to the person behind the counter to judge wether or not a person can or can't buy a gun? There should also be no age restrictions for buying guns.

please support this proposal.

Basically if this proposal was granted gun laws would be non-existant. I believe that common sense is better than law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gun laws are there to stop criminals purchasing weapons yes? Why can't it be up to the person behind the counter to judge wether or not a person can or can't buy a gun? There should also be no age restrictions for buying guns.

please support this proposal.

Common sense may be better than law, but common sense is unenforceable. :) Gun laws are a tool. Suppose a man with a gun becomes a criminal. Then we have to take his gun away from him. But we can't because there's no law. So we're going to have a a lot of criminals with guns, which doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

Basically if this proposal was granted gun laws would be non-existant. I believe that common sense is better than law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gun laws are there to stop criminals purchasing weapons yes? Why can't it be up to the person behind the counter to judge wether or not a person can or can't buy a gun? There should also be no age restrictions for buying guns.

please support this proposal.


Do have a link to it?

up to the gun dealer? :roll: don't make me laugh.

Common sense may be better than law, but common sense is unenforceable. :) Gun laws are a tool. Suppose a man with a gun becomes a criminal. Then we have to take his gun away from him. But we can't because there's no law. So we're going to have a a lot of criminals with guns, which doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

Well I think that their should be tighter laws on who can own a gun shop, that way whoever's commonsense is being put to the test should be able to realise who may turn out to be a criminal. If this was passed I think it could cut down on the amount of people with guns because the person at the shop would not just let everyone who had not yet commited a violent crime have a gun.

Do have a link to it?

No I don't have a link to it. I was on page 16 or 18 of the proposals list.

up to the gun dealer? :roll: don't make me laugh.

It would require tighter control on who can be a gun dealer.

Common sense may be better than law, but common sense is unenforceable. :) Gun laws are a tool. Suppose a man with a gun becomes a criminal. Then we have to take his gun away from him. But we can't because there's no law. So we're going to have a a lot of criminals with guns, which doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

Well I think that their should be tighter laws on who can own a gun shop, that way whoever's commonsense is being put to the test should be able to realise who may turn out to be a criminal. If this was passed I think it could cut down on the amount of people with guns because the person at the shop would not just let everyone who had not yet commited a violent crime have a gun.

But as the saying goes, guns don't cause crimes. :) How does one test common sense anyway ? I don't think a future criminal has a certain "look". It'd be easier to just require a gun license, wouldn't it ?

Common sense may be better than law, but common sense is unenforceable. :) Gun laws are a tool. Suppose a man with a gun becomes a criminal. Then we have to take his gun away from him. But we can't because there's no law. So we're going to have a a lot of criminals with guns, which doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

Well I think that their should be tighter laws on who can own a gun shop, that way whoever's commonsense is being put to the test should be able to realise who may turn out to be a criminal. If this was passed I think it could cut down on the amount of people with guns because the person at the shop would not just let everyone who had not yet commited a violent crime have a gun.

But as the saying goes, guns don't cause crimes. :) How does one test common sense anyway ? I don't think a future criminal has a certain "look". It'd be easier to just require a gun license, wouldn't it ?

I'm not saying that they do, but the use of guns during a crime would be dramatically reduced. and therefore it is highly likely that so would the amount of deaths of victims of violent crime.
One could test common sense with the use of senario training.

Common sense may be better than law, but common sense is unenforceable. :) Gun laws are a tool. Suppose a man with a gun becomes a criminal. Then we have to take his gun away from him. But we can't because there's no law. So we're going to have a a lot of criminals with guns, which doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

Well I think that their should be tighter laws on who can own a gun shop, that way whoever's commonsense is being put to the test should be able to realise who may turn out to be a criminal. If this was passed I think it could cut down on the amount of people with guns because the person at the shop would not just let everyone who had not yet commited a violent crime have a gun.

But as the saying goes, guns don't cause crimes. :) How does one test common sense anyway ? I don't think a future criminal has a certain "look". It'd be easier to just require a gun license, wouldn't it ?

I'm not saying that they do, but the use of guns during a crime would be dramatically reduced. and therefore it is highly likely that so would the amount of deaths of victims of violent crime.
One could test common sense with the use of senario training.

And how would this "scenario training" work, given that there is no criminal "look" ? and how would you trace a gun or ammunition used in a crime back to the owner ? also, how is this better than gun licensing ?

Basically I agree that laws are there to stop criminals...however it seems that criminals will get their guns anyway...the only thing that strict gun control laws are limiting is having the honest person get the gun. Face it those people that will abide by the law are less likely to break it. So, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on gun control - it should be on cutting the hands off of those people who shoot others or use guns in a crime. Hmm...food for thought?

Basically I agree that laws are there to stop criminals...however it seems that criminals will get their guns anyway...the only thing that strict gun control laws are limiting is having the honest person get the gun. Face it those people that will abide by the law are less likely to break it. So, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on gun control - it should be on cutting the hands off of those people who shoot others or use guns in a crime. Hmm...food for thought?

I agree with that.

In regard to Calumnia's comment on 'scenario training', how that would work would be up to whoever organised it. Perhaps a criminal could be taken from a prison to be the criminal in that scenario.

Basically I agree that laws are there to stop criminals...however it seems that criminals will get their guns anyway...the only thing that strict gun control laws are limiting is having the honest person get the gun. Face it those people that will abide by the law are less likely to break it. So, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on gun control - it should be on cutting the hands off of those people who shoot others or use guns in a crime. Hmm...food for thought?

I agree with that.

In regard to Calumnia's comment on 'scenario training', how that would work would be up to whoever organised it. Perhaps a criminal could be taken from a prison to be the criminal in that scenario.

okay, and then what ? and how is this better than gun licensing ?

Basically I agree that laws are there to stop criminals...however it seems that criminals will get their guns anyway...the only thing that strict gun control laws are limiting is having the honest person get the gun. Face it those people that will abide by the law are less likely to break it. So, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on gun control - it should be on cutting the hands off of those people who shoot others or use guns in a crime. Hmm...food for thought?

So now criminals can't turn over a new leaf and get a job, because you've just crippled them. How can this be a good thing ?

Basically I agree that laws are there to stop criminals...however it seems that criminals will get their guns anyway...the only thing that strict gun control laws are limiting is having the honest person get the gun. Face it those people that will abide by the law are less likely to break it. So, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on gun control - it should be on cutting the hands off of those people who shoot others or use guns in a crime. Hmm...food for thought?

I agree with that.

In regard to Calumnia's comment on 'scenario training', how that would work would be up to whoever organised it. Perhaps a criminal could be taken from a prison to be the criminal in that scenario.

okay, and then what ? and how is this better than gun licensing ?

What do you mean and then what?

This is better than gun licensing because many worthy gun license aplicants are turned down for some reason or other.

Basically I agree that laws are there to stop criminals...however it seems that criminals will get their guns anyway...the only thing that strict gun control laws are limiting is having the honest person get the gun. Face it those people that will abide by the law are less likely to break it. So, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on gun control - it should be on cutting the hands off of those people who shoot others or use guns in a crime. Hmm...food for thought?

So now criminals can't turn over a new leaf and get a job, because you've just crippled them. How can this be a good thing ?

Many criminals who are prently re-habilitated end up commiting crimes after they are released, very few even try to turn over a new leafe, they should not have commited the crime in the first place, it will act as a deterant to criminals.

Many criminals who are prently re-habilitated end up commiting crimes after they are released, very few even try to turn over a new leafe, they should not have commited the crime in the first place, it will act as a deterant to criminals.

Do you have statistics to back this up ? and even if there are few, what right have we to deny these few a chance to turn over a new leaf ?

What do you mean and then what?

I mean, what happens next ?

This is better than gun licensing because many worthy gun license aplicants are turned down for some reason or other.

Reasons such as ? what reason would anyone have to turn down a gun license for someone who would be allowed a gun by a gun shop owner ?

Many criminals who are prently re-habilitated end up commiting crimes after they are released, very few even try to turn over a new leafe, they should not have commited the crime in the first place, it will act as a deterant to criminals.

Do you have statistics to back this up ? and even if there are few, what right have we to deny these few a chance to turn over a new leaf ?

I could get statistics from the real world, though they would not be acurate to NS.

What do you mean and then what?

I mean, what happens next ?

This is better than gun licensing because many worthy gun license aplicants are turned down for some reason or other.

Reasons such as ? what reason would anyone have to turn down a gun license for someone who would be allowed a gun by a gun shop owner ?

I can't think of any at the moment, but I have read some, I will find the books in which I read these facts and put quotes on here.

Many criminals who are prently re-habilitated end up commiting crimes after they are released, very few even try to turn over a new leafe, they should not have commited the crime in the first place, it will act as a deterant to criminals.

Do you have statistics to back this up ? and even if there are few, what right have we to deny these few a chance to turn over a new leaf ?

I could get statistics from the real world, though they would not be acurate to NS.

(OOC: Well yes, and the "real world" should be separate from NS. So you really can't make a point of that unless you can get some stats on it, which is currently not possible I think.) To reiterate, even if the statistics were to prove your point, what right have we to deny these few a chance to turn over a new leaf ?

Many criminals who are prently re-habilitated end up commiting crimes after they are released, very few even try to turn over a new leafe, they should not have commited the crime in the first place, it will act as a deterant to criminals.

Do you have statistics to back this up ? and even if there are few, what right have we to deny these few a chance to turn over a new leaf ?

I could get statistics from the real world, though they would not be acurate to NS.

(OOC: Well yes, and the "real world" should be separate from NS. So you really can't make a point of that unless you can get some stats on it, which is currently not possible I think.) To reiterate, even if the statistics were to prove your point, what right have we to deny these few a chance to turn over a new leaf ?

I think we have the right because if they were found guilty of a crime they deserve to be punished.

The problem is not 'handicap' criminals - its their use of weapons. Some how along the way - criminals stopped respecting the consequences of their actions. We should not ponder on their consequences of having their hand chopped off - the question of gun control is that we keep making laws that make it harder for honest people to obtain them - which does not deter the criminal - so the question really is the criminal and what we can do to deter him/her through conseqences--you don't like chopping off hands as it will creat a larger population of 'handicap' individuals - then how about immediate trial and elimination. No appeals, trial by a judge only (no jury). The problem isn't how to keep honest people without guns, it's keeping the offenders from committing a crime again.

I think we have the right because if they were found guilty of a crime they deserve to be punished.

They deserve to be punished, true. But do they deserve to be denied the right to turn over a new leaf ?

I'm not sure if a chance of rehabilitation is warranted in cases of extremely grotesque crimes. However, I believe the particulare crime should be taken into consideration. Was it self-defense, a crime of passion, was it committed by a repeat offender - well if so, then lets rid ourselves of repeat offenders. Rehabilitation should not be an excuse or a way out of extermination for extremely violent gun crimes. Individuals need to take that responsibility themselves - not blame, mom, dad, society, the first grade teacher, or the junior high bully.

Basically if this proposal was granted gun laws would be non-existant. I believe that common sense is better than law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gun laws are there to stop criminals purchasing weapons yes? Why can't it be up to the person behind the counter to judge wether or not a person can or can't buy a gun? There should also be no age restrictions for buying guns.

please support this proposal.

Common sense may be better than law, but common sense is unenforceable. :) Gun laws are a tool. Suppose a man with a gun becomes a criminal. Then we have to take his gun away from him. But we can't because there's no law. So we're going to have a a lot of criminals with guns, which doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

Agreed.

I think we have the right because if they were found guilty of a crime they deserve to be punished.

They deserve to be punished, true. But do they deserve to be denied the right to turn over a new leaf ?

The denial of the right to turn over a new leaf is their punishment.
I think that courts should be closely monitored and the system made so that no innocent people can be wrongly accused (of course this will happen, but the chances must be reduced). I think the punishement under discussion (de-handing :) ) should only apply to those who have commited extremely violent crimes such as murder.

I think we have the right because if they were found guilty of a crime they deserve to be punished.

They deserve to be punished, true. But do they deserve to be denied the right to turn over a new leaf ?

The denial of the right to turn over a new leaf is their punishment.
I think that courts should be closely monitored and the system made so that no innocent people can be wrongly accused (of course this will happen, but the chances must be reduced). I think the punishement under discussion (de-handing :) ) should only apply to those who have commited extremely violent crimes such as murder.

Define murder. Do you mean premeditated murder only? All types of murder? Do you count manslaughter as murder? Also this type of treatment is inhumane our opinion. What is the point of this type of punishment? Why couldn't those who don't turn over a new leaf simply change hands?

Also as to those who said that gun laws don't keep them out of the hands of criminals. Gun laws may not keep them out of the hands of gang members. But they might give those who think about killing someone in a rage the chance to reconsider their actions during the waiting period.

People who commit crimes in a rage usually have a very logical motive. Crimes of passion, crimes in defense of ones - self, crime in defense of a loved one. These are the people who cannot be 'punished' unjustly. While all members who commit crimes must be tried and equal access to the law maintained, we cannot simply hope that people will be 'rehabilitated.' It is difficult to have a criminal rehabilitate - although, agreed not impossible. Those that can and are rehabilitated are the soft criminals (burglery, breaking and entering, and some battery) but the hard-core criminals - what do you think made them that way. If the evidence points and convicts, they should be punished - de-handed. Something has got to begin creating that deterrence that has been lost. Respect for the law and life must be regained.

Speaking of 'common sense' why in the world should anyone assume that a dealer who profits from the sale of firearms will refuse to sell to a willing buyer?

Speaking of 'common sense' why in the world should anyone assume that a dealer who profits from the sale of firearms will refuse to sell to a willing buyer?

Totally agree with The White Cows and Cucu adds: what about totally relax guns control by outlawing them for people that aren't exercing a job requiring one (police, security....)?

I really can't understand why 'honest people' would want a gun. And the argument that goes "guns are to be allowed because bad people don't follow the laws and have guns, so it s unjust because honest people that follow the laws can't defend themselves against them" doesn't work. It's just a vicious circle.

If there is a real problem of 'bad people with guns' in a country, it already reflects that there is a disfunctioning of the authority in the control of basically lethal weapons. 'Good people' should ask for a better control of the gun 'in the first place' because i believe that guns are BAD, that allowing guns is symbolicaly allowing violence, that guns can only have a bad influence on 'good people'. Should you give me a gun, i will be more tempted to used it than not, and that s BAD.

So i disagree.

The big problem with common sense is that it doesn't really work on a grand scale. It's a shame, but we can't manipulate the IV (gun ownwership) to see what effect it has on the DV (gun-related and, perhaps, other crimes) on a national or international level either, so scientific reasoning won't hold.

Thus, I propose that no more resolutions concerning the sales of arms should be made, save that minors and those with existing criminal records shall not be allowed to possess guns, because basically this shouldn't be a UN issue when there's no real evidence to argue one way or the other.

And in response to nations which teach use of firearms from a young age, I'm not saying they can't train to use them, but that they can't actually own those firearms.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I really can't understand why 'honest people' would want a gun. And the argument that goes "guns are to be allowed because bad people don't follow the laws and have guns, so it s unjust because honest people that follow the laws can't defend themselves against them" doesn't work. It's just a vicious circle.


Before getting to that, first off I have to say that I do not support the proposed resolution because A) Doing something of this kind would conflict with the member nations' sovereign rights and B) I don't think that "just anyone" should be allowed to purchase weaponry (say, children and felons).

To answer the above question - I disagree that there is anything circular about such an argument. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if someone enters my home and demonstrates the intent to harm a member of my family, I would like to be able to open up a hole in them that I could throw my dog through. Whether the intruder is armed with a gun or with a carrot is immaterial to the issue.

There are other arguments than home defense such as keeping your own government honest (the idea being that your government is less likely to try draconian police-state jazz if the populace is armed.) This one doesn't particularly resonate with me as I doubt most folks, armed or not, would make it to the sharp end in the event of a real problem. But there are folks who hold this as the first reason guns should be available to the population.

Naturally, here in Towsonia that isn't an issue where there are really only two laws: 1) Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't stop somebody else from doing what they want and 2) Don't piss me off. All else is left up to regal judgment.

Rick, King of Towsonia

There is no simple criminal profile that could be spotted by a gun shop owner in 5 minutes. This would result in massive discrimination, as the shop owners who didn't simply ignore who they sold to would deny sales to any fitting their mental stereotype of a criminal, which could well be incorrect, and you would miss criminals that didn't fit their stereotypical views.

I really can't understand why 'honest people' would want a gun. And the argument that goes "guns are to be allowed because bad people don't follow the laws and have guns, so it s unjust because honest people that follow the laws can't defend themselves against them" doesn't work. It's just a vicious circle.


Before getting to that, first off I have to say that I do not support the proposed resolution because A) Doing something of this kind would conflict with the member nations' sovereign rights and B) I don't think that "just anyone" should be allowed to purchase weaponry (say, children and felons).

To answer the above question - I disagree that there is anything circular about such an argument. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if someone enters my home and demonstrates the intent to harm a member of my family, I would like to be able to open up a hole in them that I could throw my dog through. Whether the intruder is armed with a gun or with a carrot is immaterial to the issue.

There are other arguments than home defense such as keeping your own government honest (the idea being that your government is less likely to try draconian police-state jazz if the populace is armed.) This one doesn't particularly resonate with me as I doubt most folks, armed or not, would make it to the sharp end in the event of a real problem. But there are folks who hold this as the first reason guns should be available to the population.

Naturally, here in Towsonia that isn't an issue where there are really only two laws: 1) Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't stop somebody else from doing what they want and 2) Don't piss me off. All else is left up to regal judgment.

Rick, King of Towsonia

The problem isn't how to keep honest people without guns, it's keeping the offenders from committing a crime again.

I think having a well-armed populace is a wonderful deterrant to someone thinking about whipping out a .38 and robbing the local Stop-N-Go.

Greenspoint would not support, however, a resolution to blanketly decriminalize something that other individual nations have seen fit to outlaw.

This appears to be just another proposal that steps all over National Sovereignty.