NationStates Jolt Archive

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Mandatory Gun Ownership Act
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control Decision: Relax Proposed by: Cottonisking
Description: My friends, in this day and age of modern technology, we must face a startling and horrible truth. Crime is running rampant. I propose that every citizen of every UN nation should be charged with owning a gun for their protection. A real life example of this is in Switzerland. In Switzerland, every adult man is by law, required to have an automatic weapon in their houses at all times. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Please support the lowering of crime by voting for this act.


Voting Ends: Thu Feb 5 2004

Interesting, in the Confederacy of Mikitivity we have virtually no crime, giving every citizen a gun may change that, but we would suggest another approach: an aggressive eduation program and universal conscription. Give your population the tools to be independent and maybe they'll have less of the need to create a conflict of have-nots and haves.

This is not to say that the Confederacy is opposed to individuals owning guns, but rather would like to suggest that it is the fact that the example government CONTROLS weapons that may be contributing to the lower crime rate. This is certainly true in Mikitivity (check your own intelligence files).

Vote for this resolution! It is a good one and Catatonius supports it! Not only will it lower crime to have armed citizens, criminals have said what they fear worst are armed citizens! After such testimony, Catatonius is in support of this resolution. We are also in support of it due to the forced conscription of our country. We need former soldiers to be armed after they serve their mandatory two year terms. Former soldiers are part of the militia, which aids the standing army. They know how to properly handle firearms. Vote for this resolution!

-- Catatonius ambassador to the U.N.

Requiring gun ownership is just as socialist and authoritarian as restricting it. The Republic of Ithuania will vigilantly fight this proposal.

The nation of Alsanchia holds that corrolations between firearm laws and crime rates are just that - correlations, and more often than not ignore many other more important factors like social welfare, education levels, poverty levels, and myriad other factors that may contribute to crime rates.

Additionally, the nation of Alsanchia does not believe that citizens should be required to own guns, although Alsanchia does not believe in restricting gun ownership, either.

Though the Confederacy of Caligatio fully support the right to bear arms, we do not support mandatory gun ownership. To do so would be to infringe upon the right to NOT bear arms, which is as equally fundamental as the right TO bear arms.

Caligatio shall not approve this proposal, and if it does indeed reach quorum, the nation of Caligatio will vote against it and will urge others to do the same.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Echoing the sentiments of the excellent envoy of Caligatio, Illaria does not support the mandatory ownership of firearms.

Furthermore, arming the general populace creates in effect a large, unreadied militia force in every member world. Mortality rates are just as likely to climb as fall when simple little league baseball game discussions escalate into full out firefights.

An equal - coerced - playing field only gives the advantage to those who would naturally have purchased a gun where such purchases were legal.

Furthermore, arming the general populace creates in effect a large, unreadied militia force in every member world. Mortality rates are just as likely to climb as fall when simple little league baseball game discussions escalate into full out firefights.



This is not entirely true. For nations that succesfully employ universal conscription, men and women who choose to leave military or police service after their internship are very well versed in how to use firearms.

While it is true, FORCING any citizen to own a gun can be dangerous, PROVIDING fire arms to a trained militia can be beneficial. With this in mind, we'd like to suggest that the proposal be rewritten such that it is clear that not every citizen is forced to own something that they may or may not be: (1) able to afford, and (2) use properly.

In this particular case, it may be better to give the future resolution weaker language. Change words like REQUIRES to ENCOURAGES, as well making it clear who -or- how ownership of the small fire arms will be acomplished.

With the words of the envoy from Mikitivity in mind, Illaria further notes that age limits are not addressed in the proposal as it stands, nor the actual pool of affected people addressed beyond "citizen."

That standing, it is further noted that, while Illaria leans towards giving individuals control over their own lives, this is not the same as allowing individuals to run the law their own way. In the end, greater gun control and regulation may end up being required, with or without this theoretical lowering of crime.

Potential changes to the proposal or not, Illaria will oppose this proposal.

The Commonwealth of Rational Humans polls reveal decidedly:

The main concerns of the public are (listed in order of importance):
1) The safty of the people.
2) The retention of the power of the people.
3) The irresponsiblity of special cases.

The only way to ensure the survival of democracy is if all things pertaining of power remain in the hands of everyone. Voting, education, and healthcare are already required to be equaly distributed, but the government has to relenquish it's control of small arms to the people.

In addition to manditory gun ownership, there will be required training and testing with regards to the operating procedures of the weapon.

Random inspections of civilian's storage and knowledge of the weapon will be preformed. In the event of negligence, the weapon will be confiscated and the citizen's national participation status (the level at which a citizen contributes to the country which is directly correlated to the national sercvices of which the citizen is entitled) will be decreased by a full level until the offender re-trains and passes all of the required test for the weapon that was confiscated.

It is not enough to arm the general public, it is too much. Wether we like it or not, a portion of the population is not fit to own a weapon. However, an unarmed public cannot defend itself against a rouge government.

It is not enough to arm the general public, it is too much. Wether we like it or not, a portion of the population is not fit to own a weapon. However, an unarmed public cannot defend itself against a rouge government.

The representative from the Commonwealth of Rational Humans fails to relate this issue back to crime. The issue in question is public safety from themselves. Giving them an instrument of power that is entirely unnecessary is foolish. We will rue the day our 7 year olds run around with guns. Oh wait... they do...

Mandatory guns is a bad idea.

As far as rogue governments go, giving every man a rifle and telling him to defend against terrorists is probably the worst possible scenario i can think of.

The representative from the Commonwealth of Rational Humans fails to relate this issue back to crime.

My deepest apologies. Crime is not a large concern for my country.


Giving them an instrument of power that is entirely unnecessary is foolish.

So, you'd rather leave all the power in your government's hands?

We will rue the day our government will fail to represent us. Oh wait... they do...

Mandatory guns is a great idea. It strengthens the people's self image by giving them an instrument of power. People will more readily believe that they have the ability to affect their surroundings.

The criminal is the man who yeilds this power alone. The good citizen is the man who shares and awknowledges this power with his fellow citizens.

Typically, if some desperate soul knows that the person he is about to victimize is trained and armed, he will ask himself if he is really desperate enough to be shot and killed.

Giving out power is foolish if you give it to someone who does not fully understand it. There are exceptions to this mandatory gun rule. obviously, not everyone is fit to own a weapon, but most people can prove to be with sufficent traning and testing.


As far as rogue governments go, giving every man a rifle and telling him to defend against terrorists is probably the worst possible scenario i can think of.
I'm not talking about terrorists unless you consider the elite, propaganda spewing, power hungry, capitalist glutons who run things behind the people's backs to be the terrorists. Like I do. I find it humorous that you assume that people dont need to be protected from their own government.

Give the people reigns, not leashes. It is a cruel murder of freedom who condems his own people to helplessness.

It's a peculiar society that makes such a virtue out of having 'the right to bear arms'. There are no weapons in general circulation in our country. A restriction on individual libertes? Yes, however a gun is not an essential liberty. And we do not accept that guns are required in order for people to defend themselves. Our crime is still virtually unheard of (which is a happy vindication).

Judging from the evidence we have seen, gun ownership does not appear to reduce crime. This proposal is anathaema to our society and we oppose it unreservedly.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs
Community of Ecopoeia

The concern with crime is in relation to the original topic of the thread, not so much a flaw in your argument.

Illaria does not disallow the purchase of guns, but to say to everyone, "here, you must take this gun" is ridiculous. To give a "power" not requested by all people to all people - and force it- is not truly "giving power to the people" but is instead the illusion of "the ability to affect their surroundings."

If the ability to affect change in a nation can only be accomplished through putting a gun in everyone's hand so that their own prowess with it might determine their clout is to create a new and dangerous form of darwinism that could end with a lot of violence.

Making people carry guns and telling them (explicitly or implicitly) that it helps them change things is somewhat moot... as power shifts from democratic process and understanding to power. Power should be distributed as truth and knowledge peppered with personal perogative and will.

Forcing guns does exactly the opposite: Forces the gun on them (with or without requisite training) and then tells them which lines to think along (lines which rely on a more one dimensional scale of power)

The power given by a gun is the power to limit the power and free will of others. The power of choice is the power to choose your own path and the paths of those that choose to abide by your choices. That is the mark of liberty.

On the note that "not everyone is fit to own a weapon"... why make it mandatory then? If they're fit, they'll buy and get trained on their own if your society allows it (a process that can be observed and is based on choice). If it's mandatory, the government needs to consider all people and decide who "fits" and who doesnt (far more shades of big brother... you choose who gets this power being doled out).

Finally: Terrorists were an example, not the rule. to use your example, however: A government that must force guns on its own people so that these same people must defend themselves from said government is not really implementing a very efficient system.

I stand by my resolution that Mandatory Guns is a poor idea.

Crime may be running rampant in *your* country.

Mine on the other hand- "Crime is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. "

Instead of bring weapons of destruction to my huge - 2.312 billion- population that is utterly crime free, prostituion free and free of human trafickers, why don't you work on improving your own country?

Albion Soviets finds the whole idea ill thought out, anti democratic and frankly, a bit macho and silly.

I assure you, that no guns were pointed at any of my citizens at any moment in time (the effect would be disasterous).

In my country, one has to participate inorder to recieve benifits. There are no free rides, hence our nation's slogan "You get what you give."

My people prefer to include weapon training and ownership in the expected participation.

A citizen would not face death upon noncompliance, but would simply lose a portion of their rations or spending money that is given to them by the government at the end of the work week.

The Commonwealth of Rational Humans believe that the only thing more important than democracy is education. Suggestions for the way our government is run is not just encouraged, the colleges require each student to write their own 'State and Suggestions for the Commonwealth.'

The primary purpose of the gun act is to ensure democracy by strengthening the people's ability to control an unresponsive government.

Remember, despite what you think, we believe that education is first, democracy is second, and force is last.

But if you abandon force, it doesnt matter that you belive in education and democracy, because you will be dominated.

Our people need guns. True, they must be educated, and have a voice, but that educated voice is useless against a tyrant.

Direction without drive stands still in the face of friction.

Is it within the bounds of the UN to rule that all nations, responsive or not to their people, must equip their people with guns, no heed to cost (cultural or material)?

I assure you, that no guns were pointed at any of my citizens at any moment in time (the effect would be disasterous).
government is run is not just encouraged, the colleges require each student to write their own 'State and Suggestions for the Commonwealth.'



Our people need guns. True, they must be educated, and have a voice, but that educated voice is useless against a tyrant.

Direction without drive stands still in the face of friction.

Apparently you think your people need guns because you are a tyrant? Then why are you admitting it...Schitofrenzic?

This isn't one for the UN I'm afraid. The government of the Narcissist has declared that were this resolution to pass we would depart from our membership of the UN...

Mandatory gun ownership is ridiculous, city folk have no need for guns. Recreational weapons, we agree with and support, Farmers need to stop predators from depleating livestock numbers, Park rangers must protect our countries national animal (the narcissitic buck) from predators also, but if people are going to start forcing gun ownership on our citizens... THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!! why can't people protect themselves by non-lethal means; pepper-spray; tazers; stun-guns; etc.

Even better again is letting your government spend that money that you're allocating to supplying the guns to your people, spend it on education and police protection, PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!!

Taking, Canada and Switzerland as examples is unfair: look at Ireland, lots of guns, belowaverage gun deaths, Look at America, Lots of Guns, lots and lots of murders!!!! :mrgreen:

Apparently you think your people need guns because you are a tyrant? Then why are you admitting it...Schitofrenzic?

It is not my decision, but the decision of my people. If you read above, you'll notice that I am in no position to make up the minds of my people, and I am at their every whim.

Not a single decision in this government is made without signifigant participation and input from the public.

Our people has reasoned that weapons are far too powerful for something as uncontrolled by the civilians as the government. The people of this commonwealth are enraged whenever any collection of power subjects them to it's uncompassionate will. The citizens are so sensitive to this situation, that they will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening.

-The Temporary Elect Messanger of the Commonwealth of Rational Humans.

The representative from Illaria would like to question what brings this apparently sudden about-face in Rational Humans's viewpoint?

The representative from Illaria would like to question what brings this apparently sudden about-face in Rational Humans's viewpoint?

There was no about face that I could discern. Throughout my posts I have been driving the following points:

1. All of the power should be in the people's hands.
2. Only educated people should have guns. (Note: a vast majority of your population should be educated)
3. A government that has sole control over a military is a dangerous thing.
4. People who feel empowered tend to not become victims.

A (virtually) mandatory gun law would address all of these points.

A potentially confusing line in one of my posts may have been:
"Our people has reasoned that weapons are far too powerful for something as [potentially] uncontrol[able] by the civilians as the government."
I have substituted in a words and adjusted the grammar to make this sentence more clear.

The representative from Illaria would like to question what brings this apparently sudden about-face in Rational Humans's viewpoint?

There was no about face that I could discern. Throughout my posts I have been driving the following points:

1. All of the power should be in the people's hands.
2. Only educated people should have guns. (Note: a vast majority of your population should be educated)
3. A government that has sole control over a military is a dangerous thing.
4. People who feel empowered tend to not become victims.

A (virtually) mandatory gun law would address all of these points.

A potentially confusing line in one of my posts may have been:
"Our people has reasoned that weapons are far too powerful for something as [potentially] uncontrol[able] by the civilians as the government."
I have substituted in a words and adjusted the grammar to make this sentence more clear.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint rejects this proposal for the exact same reasons we would reject a proposal banning all gun ownership. It's the opposite extreme of the same thing, and is not an issue the U.N. should even be addressing.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Mandatory guns is a bad idea.

As far as rogue governments go, giving every man a rifle and telling him to defend against terrorists is probably the worst possible scenario i can think of.

An old childrens saying comes to mind:

With great power
comes great responsibility!

There is no doubt in our experience, that a population that is provided for is less likely to restort to crime. Similarly, there are other ways to avoid crime, but I'm of the opinion (based on some of the arguements in favour of this bill) that the idea of mandatory gun ownership is really more about building a militia for defense than addressing crime.

While our Confederation has a militia (in the form of the women and men whom have elected military service instead of civil service during their conscription period), we do agree with Illarian Ambassador. Just handing out guns to a population (especially an oppressed people) is inviting bloodshed and violence.

If the true goal is promoting international security, then a better resolution would be for nations to agree that nobody (UN member or not) will stand to gain anything by starting a noncensual war. In other words, we should be discouraging aggressor states not by making invasions potentially more costly, but instead by letting them know that the rest of us will REFUSE to trade with any aggressor state.

With that in mind, I'd call everybody's attention to the Friseebetian proposal related to the "Duties" of UN Member states. I would like to urge you all to search out their proposal and if you happen to be a regional delegate I *implore* you to endorse this proposal.

We can all our nation states to develop each to its own course while securing greater political stability!

The Constitutional Monarchy of People who Eat Animals will discuss this matter in two sections.

First: the issue of crime. If Canada and Switzerland are not acceptable examples of "no guns" vs "everyone owns a gun," then I'll put out Japan, England, and Australia as examples of "no guns." Anyone chanced to check out the stats for England since they've outlawed guns? Or those of Japan? Or of Australia, for that matter? Crime has gone way up -- criminals know that the only people who have guns is -- THEMSELVES. Bobbies (from what I read) aren't even armed. Therefore, those who intentionally break the law are the only ones who will have guns. Again, take Vancouver, BC, as an example. After guns were outlawed, the chief of police was mandating a shotgun in every squad car because VIOLENT CRIME HAD INCREASED. Even in America, crime is less in counties that have a concealed weapon carry law, as opposed to neighbooring counties that forbid concealed weapons.

Second: mandatory gun laws. This idea is simply absurd. Are you going to give released convicts guns? Force hardened criminals to own guns? That's asking for it. How about mentally ill people who have no perception of what taking a life means?

The solution is to pass a UN bill forbidding any gun control laws whatsoever. If an individual wants to be able to buy a gun, they should be able to get one. They would fully know, however, that if they intend to do harm with it, there is nothing hindering the person they may intend to do harm to from owning a gun also.

This is the stand the Constitutional Monarchy of People who Eat Animals.

"A gun in hand is worth many on the shelf."

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The Liberated Americans stand in FULL SUPPORT of Cottonisking and further propose that every citizen ought to have the right to bear these arms wherever they go to protect their life and their family's lives. The right of self-defense can NEVER be legislated away by ANY country.

The question here is not the right to bear arms, but the mandatory enforcement of all citizens having one, Liberated Americans.

Illaria, as previously stated, "does not disallow the purchase of guns"

The full quote is: Illaria does not disallow the purchase of guns, but to say to everyone, "here, you must take this gun" is ridiculous. To give a "power" not requested by all people to all people - and force it- is not truly "giving power to the people" but is instead the illusion of "the ability to affect their surroundings."

We don't believe it is in the UN's remit to legislate on gun ownership.

Incidentally, comments regarding the gun/crime situation in the UK were woefully ignorant and inaccurate.

We will not accept this proposal.

Or of Australia, for that matter? Crime has gone way up -- criminals know that the only people who have guns is -- THEMSELVES.

Ha ha... idiot. Really, that's one of the stupidest things I've had the misfortune to read. You've obviously not got a clue what you're talking about.

Crime has not 'gone up' here. Criminals rarely have guns. It makes front page news when there are bullets discharged in a public place. I can walk down the street knowing that virtually everyone I pass is almost guaranteed to not have a gun. There have been a handful of drive by shootings in the decades I've been here. There's never been an incident involving a gun in a school.

You've no idea what you're talking about. Run along now, go and read Mein Kampf or The Red Book or whatever your type reads.

then I'll put out Japan, England, and Australia as examples of "no guns." Anyone chanced to check out the stats for England since they've outlawed guns? Or those of Japan? Or of Australia, for that matter? Crime has gone way up -- criminals know that the only people who have guns is -- THEMSELVES

Not only have you made a fool of yourself regarding Australia and the UK but if you were to bother checking the facts you would find that Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the industrialised world.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You cant just gloss over it by saying "look at the facts"

cite sources and numbers if numbers are what you like.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like to humbly and respectfully ask the Liberated Americans how Liberated they would feel if their government passed a law requiring each household in their nation to store a 250-liter barrel of toxic waste in their dining room?

The United Nations, as an international body, should be focussing on issues of international import, and not such mundane and national level issues as whether or not each person should or should not have a firearm. It's calling in the Supreme Court to determine if Suzie's ball hit the line in a game of 4-square.

Whether or not guns are bad, or more guns in citizens' hands raise or lower the crime rate, or whether the gun or the shooter or the manufacturer are ultimately responsible for someone's death are not the issue in this case. This case is about the U.N. getting involved in micromanaging sovereign nations.

We are against this proposal.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The proposal is to mandate gun ownership, not mandate bearing arms out in public. We would like to see all persons armed to prevent crime from spreading.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Switzerland's form of everyone gets a gun is a part of their citizen conscription. That also contributes to their success. Now, while this might work there, requiring a citizen army in EVERY UN nation is ridiculous and out of the UN's power. This proposal also does not take this idea into account.

Again, Illaria is opposed.

The question here is not the right to bear arms, but the mandatory enforcement of all citizens having one, Liberated Americans.

Illaria, as previously stated, "does not disallow the purchase of guns"

The full quote is: Illaria does not disallow the purchase of guns, but to say to everyone, "here, you must take this gun" is ridiculous. To give a "power" not requested by all people to all people - and force it- is not truly "giving power to the people" but is instead the illusion of "the ability to affect their surroundings."

I don't think the issue is all that ridiculous.

Take the following sentence:

"The government of Mikitivity requires all of its citizens to [ ]."

Now try:
1. get a basic education.
2. serve either in the military or civil service for 1-2 years.
3. be vaccinated before traveling.
4. be tested for sexually transimited dieases before marriage.
5. be taxed.
6. to keep their firearms from their conscription.
7. to be tested before being issued a bicycle license.

NOTE: I would say automobile, but we don't really have enough of those to worry about. They are EXPENSIVE and dangerous, so our citizens tend to just use inclines, trains, and bicycles to get around. That and snowboards.

Anyway, I think the issue is more of one where we are really talking about the United Nations making a choice that really is something that in our humble opinion falls within the realm of sovereign rights.

It is fine and resonable for Miervatians, Klatuu, Barada, or Nikto (four of the Confederations tribes) to make these decisions. But what is right for a developing nation like Mikitivity is *NOT* good for an overpopulated wasteful uneducated overworked industrial population.

It is our opinion that the resolution should be changed from MANDATING a practice to ENCOURAGING a practice or even better ACKNOWLEDGING that in some societies a practice works and is a good thing.

All too often UN member states are using this forum to enforce their will on other nations. Fortunately the number of developing nations nearly equals the number of developed nations *and* the number and influence of liberal nations that hold similar ideals as the Confederacy of Mikitivity is such that most UN resolutions as of late *match* our natural course of development (or follow behind in some cases). But lately my government has been concerned about other UN proposals, like the cut the rain forests proposals. Such an idea is an outrage ... no, it would be like an act of war to us.

Clearly a line has to be drawn. I implore the authors of ALL UN proposals to move away from creating resolutions that skirt too close to the line of sovereign rights and instead use this forum as an force to provide EXAMPLES and LEADERSHIP. Draft resolutions that use words like "IMPLORES" or "ENCOURAGES" or "RECOGNIZES" model behaviors and ideals.

Finally, I've searched my nations and the UN records and can't find a reference to a place called "Switzerland". What is it? Why is a fictional or ancient historical place talked about in a UN resolution?

The nation of Cottonkissing was asked to produce evidence of its assertion that more guns mean less crime. Cutting and pasting an article by another person who you refuse to acknowledge about low crime in Switzerland doesn't constitute evidence.

Japan is also a low crime country with a murder rate similiar to Switzerland and Norway. It practises strict gun control. The UK and Australia also practise strict gun control and their murder rates are a lot lower (1.61 and 1.81 per 100,000 respectively) than that of the US.

When comparing these different countries, their various crime rates and gun control laws it appears that there is very little correlation between rates of crime and gun control.

So we can only conclude that your nation's assertion that more guns means less crime is not only not a fact but when we examine the evidence it appears to be a myth.

A real life example of this is in Switzerland. In Switzerland, every adult man is by law, required to have an automatic weapon in their houses at all times. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

If nothing else, this is an example of post hoc reasoning. Low crime rates in Switzerland may have everything or nothing to do with a requirement to possess firearms. Even in elementary statistics classes, Tragomaschalian children learn that correlation does not imply causation.

Since Tragomaschalia introduced compulsory military service, during which all trainees receive training in the use and care of guns, and a rotary standing militia, which guarantees that at any time two percent of eligible adults possess handguns, there has been no perceptible change in incidence or severity of crime. There was little before, and there is little now.

We therefore see no rational basis for agreeing with the proposer.

It seems pretty clear to me that the use of statistics clarifies nothing in the debate regarding gun ownership and crime. We are all capable of presenting statistics that support our particular viewpoint. Given that, I am no longer debating the merits of this proposal with respect to crime reduction.

Ecopoeia is a demilitarised nation. Mock us if you will but this is our choice and our way of life. How can this be squared with mandatory gun ownership? You threaten to undermine the very principles of our nation.

If this proposal is passed, we will take measures to countermand, mock and scorn it as best we can.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs