NationStates Jolt Archive

The Global Disarmament Act is a multi-staged bill whose purpose is to remove many lethal weapons from the hands of civilians and authorities alike to be replaced with less lethal methods created for the same uses. This is Stage I, being a multi-sectioned bill whose purpose is to restrict certain ammunition types and crack down on illegal firearms possession by civilians and authorities alike.

Section A - Limitation of Lethal Ammunition Types

There are far too many dangerous ammunition types in the world that have reckless amounts of "man-stopping" power and are completely unnecessary for the firearms that they are used in. States in cooperation with the United Nations shall put the following restrictions on ammunition purchase, possession, and usage of ammunition not meeting the requirements set forth by this bill. There are two types of limitations; public, and restricted. Public limitations apply to civilians, whereas restricted limitations apply to the state's military.

Sidearm Ammunition: 55 grain max (public) / 75 grain max (restricted)
Sub-Machine Gun Ammunition: 55 grain max (public) / 115 grain max (restricted)
Rifle Ammunition: (see Section B for public information) / 150 grain max (restricted)
Assault Rifle Ammunition: (see Section B for public information) / 65 grain max (restricted)
Shotgun Ammunition: Buckshot only, no slugs (public) / Buckshot only, no slugs (restricted)

Section B - Limitation of Firearms

Some weaponry, no matter how weak the projectile, are just too powerful to be reasonable for civilian use in today's world. Among these are weapons designated as rifles, assault rifles, and other types of firearms. These weapons are designed to be as lethal as possible, whereas some other weapons are designed for neutralization or destruction of abstructions in the field. The aforementioned firearms types shall henceforth be deemed illegal for possession by civilians, but legal with ammunition restrictions for the military presence of a state.

Section C - Civilian Firearm Crackdown & Required Registry

There are many civilians in the world that possess firearms solely for the purpose of harming others, and not for the purposes of self-defense and recreation. This bill would require that all states devote a †minimum of 5% of their crime-fighting budget to the repossession of unregistered firearms and keeping registration files up-to-date with regards to alias, location, physical information, and the purpose of ownership of the weapon in question. †Also, governments shall collect an annual tax from the owner(s) of any firearms equal to 10% of the total price of the weapon(s) in question, 5% of which must go towards gun control in that state.

†Should there be a 100% income tax rate in a state, then the minimum amount of money to be devoted to the gun control offices of a state shall be adjusted to 5.5% of the crime-fighting budget instead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like feedback from the U.N. as to how to better this bill before asking for support to get it to the stage of voting.

Some quick answers to questions that I'm anticipating:

Q. What about non-UN nations! They won't have restrictions like this on their weaponry! We'll be defenseless!
A. Today's wars only resort to "ground troops" that use personal firearms that are being restricted within the bill in their final stages, so if you are faced with opposing ground troops, then you must have been weak enough in other forms to allow this. In addition, the UN supports the nations that enroll within it militarily if it deems so- If you are obviously being attacked by a non-UN nation, you will be backed. Slightly more powerful personal firearms would not make a difference.

Q. What if a gun company starts designating gun 'x' as a different type so that it is legal for civilian use?
A. It is up to government gun control agencies to define each weapon. Obviously, if a company is trying to get around this bill, then they have the intention of putting overly-dangerous products in the hands of civilians and should not be allowed to continue.

Q. You didn't list weapon type 'x'! It's dangerous, too!
A. This is made with the assumption that civilians do not have access to powerful weaponry such as cannons, machine-guns, and other extremely dangerous and reckless forms of firearms that have not been listed. If civilians DO have possession of such items, then it is assumed so for a purpose, and will be taken care of in another stage of this bill.

Ever tried to hunt with a 9mm pistol? It doesn't work. Not all guns are used to defend yourself, some parts of the world (including some UN members) use rifles to put food on the table.

I would rather see the restriction of all handguns from public sale, but allow persons to buy rifles and shotguns. These weapons are hard to conceal, and have practical applications in hunting. Why not apply magazine restrictions to these weapons, instead of outright banning of them. Say, no detachable magazines for either weapon, a limit of five rounds per rifle and 3 per shotgun. I'll leave the grain restrictions up to you.

Shotguns? No, that's just wrong. Rifles, I can understand for recreational purposes, but there are just too many powerful rifles and not enough variation in the weight of ammunition, there would have to be a UN civilian rifle ban list, because there are too many rifles that are far too powerful.

BTW, for those that don't know, 7000 grains = 1 pound, it is a weight measurement system.


Perhaps limitations on muzzle velocity would be a good addition?

Try hunting duck, or any bird, with a rifle, I think you'll find it quite difficult. Shotguns and rifles have practical applications, that being hunting. Handguns, submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, shoulder mounted rockets launchers, howitzers, and the like are all made to kill people. You're approaching this problem completely ass backwards.

I think a ban on all detachable magazine rifles, requiring bolt action rifles, would seem reasonable. I see little difficulty in codifying such a ban. If there is one, please let us know.

I've lax'd the bill to allow for shotguns with buckshot- No slugs, they're not exactly wide-spread or any good for hunting, and are only meant for power.

In regards to other, more dangerous forms of weaponry . . . This is "Stage I". I believe that before we can expect governments to let go of their arms, we must have the people do so.

bumpity bump bump.

The nation of Sophista is sad to see such a well-written proposal wasted on such a terrible issue. While we, too, wish the universe was a caring, considerate place, where all the laws are respected and people voluntarily give up power. Unfortunately, that kind of high-minded idealism has no place in reality, which is why we will stand in opposition of this bill.

First and foremost, enforcement of this bill is nonexistant. Without the slightest hint of recourse for violations of the legislation, firearms companies and civilians alike have no reason to not continue producing or using these weapons. Even a ban on production is only effective within the domestic market, meaning an illegal cache of ammunition is only a border away. Unless the UN plans on providing Sophista with a fully staffed and funded border patrol to deal with this new smuggling menace, we would thank them to reconsider passage of this proposal.

Secondly, the funding mechanism for this bill is a lose-lose situation. Where 5% of a nation's police budget (assuming its a nationalized police force) might work miracles when reapplied as an education grant or an industry subsidy, to assume that such a paltry sum will be anything more than a drop in the bucket in this new "war on ammunition" is fallacious. Assuming a smaller nation has a budget in the area of $30,000,000 to combat crime, this budget would require $1.5 million to fund a nation-wide anti-ammunition department. How are 25 officers and their equipment supposed to stop every last bullet from getting into the country? The second a single shipment of the would-be illegal ammunition slips into a shipping dock, this bill is meaningless. Sure, companies have lost revenue from their existing stock of illegal arms, spent millions on retooling their infrastructure to produce new arms, and the nation's police have been rendered impotent by people seeking to make the world a better place, but the high-grain weapons still exist, and continue to be used. Even if you want to say that "its just a minimum 5%, you can give more," why would any nation want to? This funding wasn't even an issue until this proposal came along - the money was going to combat people who misuse the ammunition, not the ammunition itself. Cast the net too wide, and you won't reap anything.

Thirdly, lets think of the philosophical implications of such legislation. As the United Nations, we have established a charter that proclaims all humans as rights-bearing entities, endowed with the inalienble power of self-determination. We have decided that people, by and large, don't need a big government telling them what to do every step of the way, and this bill acts in direct contravention of that ideal. The proposal seeks to punish the masses for the mistakes of the few, removing a significant power from many people who are responsible with it. A car can be used to kill, should we ban cars from being over a certain weight and speed capability because some people use them as weaposn? Should we outlaw all cleaning products over a certain concentration and form a special department of enforcement because some people make poisons with them? We think not. Rather, let us use the money to deal with those who actually commit a crime. Let us educate our masses, and lower crime by removing the causes, not the methods.

We welcome further discussion and debate, and urge the defeat of this proposal.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Cove does not support such an action aimed at reducing the liberties of its members. That and we are pirates, so we love guns.

The Republic of Ninja Turtle Pirates
Un Delegate
The Cove

When will peace-loving idiots stop viewing the world through their rosy litle spectacles? Disarming the world is two things
1) impossible without enforcement, which defeats the object
2) totally suicidal. You'd be leaving the UN open to direct armed assault by terrorists or rogue states
This is a stupid pipe dream that rears its stupid head far too often in this forum. Besides, what use would it do in nationstates? we have not the ability to go to war anyway!

I am strongly opposed to this resolution, the idea of the UN dictating to States whether or not we have lethal weapons is, to be frank, offensive.

This is a question of National Sovereignty, something I for one would see kept within the power of Armorfiend's own people, it is one thing for the UN to encourage universal education, health programs or even disarmament of certain Biological Weapons but, when you think of messing with the rights of my citizens, then you are in for a fight and I will not go quietly into the night.

General Sputnik of the Armed Republic of Armorfiend

Try hunting duck, or any bird, with a rifle, I think you'll find it quite difficult. Shotguns and rifles have practical applications, that being hunting.

A cunning way around this problem would be to ban cruel and unnecessary activities such as hunting. Then no one would have any need at all for weaponry of any kind, wouldn't that be nice?

The Republic of Global Peoples agrees with the reasons stated by the Nation of Sophista, as well as a few other points that the RGP would like to make known:

While in theory, removing the world of guns would seem to lower violent crime, it would open the door to a floodgate of "boot-legging" and smuggling guns of all shapes and sizes from not only rogue states, but also in members of the UN. The major flaw is that the weapons that you wish to remove do already exist in the hands of countless people, and no amount of time or energy could track down and remove every last one. Adding in the almost certain growth of underground gunsmiths, simply removing guns from known manufacturers would still leave countless guns in the hands of those with ties to the black market.

The Republic of Global Peoples must disagree with this proposal, and must also state that the proposal is far too flawed at this stage to be mended in the future.

Try hunting duck, or any bird, with a rifle, I think you'll find it quite difficult. Shotguns and rifles have practical applications, that being hunting.

A cunning way around this problem would be to ban cruel and unnecessary activities such as hunting. Then no one would have any need at all for weaponry of any kind, wouldn't that be nice?

Except that in certain parts of the world, people still have to hunt for their food. Also, I consider factory farming to be far crueler than hunting. An animal in the wild has at least lived its life free, an animal in a factory farm often can't turn around within its own cage. To me, that is much crueler than a shot to the heart and bang, you're dead. It's the difference between genocide and murder, a small difference to be sure, but a difference nonetheless.

Except that in certain parts of the world, people still have to hunt for their food. Also, I consider factory farming to be far crueler than hunting. An animal in the wild has at least lived its life free, an animal in a factory farm often can't turn around within its own cage. To me, that is much crueler than a shot to the heart and bang, you're dead. It's the difference between genocide and murder, a small difference to be sure, but a difference nonetheless.

You are correct, factory farming is also a cruel and unnecessary activity and therefore it should be stopped. People do not need to eat meat.

The Democratic States of Hirota agree with the proposal - we will vote for it if it comes to a vote.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Evoche willvote against such a proposal. The right to keep and maintain an effective standing army and the right to bear arms is a matter of national sovreignity, and should not be infringed upon.

This is a dangerous proposal that threatens to rob nations of it's defensive measures, and lead us to open attack from well-armed rogue nations.

If any government or other political body ever decides they really want to take away The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint's weapons, they should feel free to try. We'll be more than happy to begin the process by delivering what ammunition we have in the quickest and most direct way possible.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Please limit the weapons to those that have a cross-border effect, beyond that of the weapon's intended target.

Globally disarming nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons is something the international world might have an interest in; disarming personal firearms is a sovereign nation's own issue to deal with as it sees fit.

Restrict our weapons? Just try it!

The Almighty Ninjas are a warrior class. All of our citizens begin Ninja training at the age of 7, and this includes both males and females. We ar enot a voilent country, but war and its waging is our heritage. The training strengthens our peoples resolve and preserves our heritage.

Our weaponry is possess by every one of our citizens because they are fully trained and capable of defending our territory. Our standing army consists of every living breathing citizen of the Almighty Ninjas (though not all of them are directed in usage in war).

We will vote against it.

If this proposal goes through, you can expect our resignation from the U.N. promptly.

Restrict our weapons? Just try it!

The Almighty Ninjas are a warrior class. All of our citizens begin Ninja training at the age of 7, and this includes both males and females. We ar enot a voilent country, but war and its waging is our heritage. The training strengthens our peoples resolve and preserves our heritage.

Our weaponry is possess by every one of our citizens because they are fully trained and capable of defending our territory. Our standing army consists of every living breathing citizen of the Almighty Ninjas (though not all of them are directed in usage in war).

We will vote against it.

If this proposal goes through, you can expect our resignation from the U.N. promptly.

Though we will immediately work to arm all of our citizens with dozens of these less lethal weapons. We will work towards developing low velocity rounds that can achieve the same damage as a higher velocity round. We will just have to get closer to use it.

I believe the Almighty Ninjas would get to keep their shurikens, nunchaku, and katanas. They just could not use certain guns. I believe any reasonable follower of nin-po would agree with me that this would not hamper their heritage or their effectiveness in battle, as ninjas rely on stealth. And if the resolution began with handguns only, sniper rifles and other silenced weapons could still be utilized.