NationStates Jolt Archive

No More Guns

I writing on behalf of my proposal, "No More Guns." My proposal is gaining support and it needs your help. Join those who support the elimination of civilian guns. Please take a look at it and consider supporting it. To do this go to "United Nations" then scroll down to "Proposals." Click "List Proposals" and search for "No More Guns." Thank You for Your time. Also, try and get you friends to also support my proposal.

A Fellow U.N. Delegate,
Eternal Formaldehyde

We support the elimination of civilian guns. However, we don't support the imposition of this policy upon other nations.

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=no%20more%20guns

Text of proposal:

No More Guns

Category: Gun Control; A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Decision: Tighten

Proposed by: Eternal Formaldehyde


Description: All civilian guns are to be banned.

I. It will increase safety.

A. There will be no more accidental gun deaths.
B. There will be no access to guns for use in killings.

II. Less crime.

A. Without a mean of threatening people, criminals will not be able to commit crimes.
1. Civilians wouldn't need to keep guns for protection.
2. Police and military would have a clear advantage (their guns) over gunless criminals.
B. No gang wars using guns.

III. Better military and police force

A. For those who really, really want to play with guns, they'll join the military.
1. They'll be tought how to use them properly.
2. They'll be tought discipline and control.
3. An increase in military and power.
B. They'd (the police force and the military) have an increase of power over gunless criminals. (see also II.A.3)


Approvals: 11 (NewFoundGirl, Literatya, Geministan, Concerted Socialists, Markodonia, America the American, Dolphinarium, Chazistan, Thrace-Tailteann, Ratol, Baribeau)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 142 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Apr 26 2004

No.
No, I say.
Hell, no! I dare say.

Just as the passing of onerous laws attempting to regulate otherwise mundane behavior serves no purpose but to burden the law-abiding with yet another act that they are prohibited from performing, so too does the passing of onerous laws attempting to strip a citizen of the right to bear arms only serve to leave the law-abiding unarmed in the face of naked aggression from both the government AND from the criminal element of the society.

Logistically, the police cannot be everywhere at once. Moreover, the duty of law enforcement does NOT guarantee individual protection of every citizen. In a city of 10,000 people, for example, half of them (5,000) would have to be cops in order to guarantee each citizen individual protection. The example assumes that every cop is a citizen and that every cop is capable of affording themselves protection. Thus, a citizen must be responsible for their own safety, even unto the point of a life-threatening situation.

Statistically, the use of civilian-owned firearms even among a small percentage of the population can reduce crimes such as burglary. Look at it from the perspective of a burglar. If one house in ten has a gun, the odds are small that you're going to be shot or at the very least caught by the homeowner in the act. If one house in five owns a gun, the odds go up to 20%. If one in three owns a gun, the odds go up correspondingly. If one house out of two owns a gun, it becomes a coin toss. An even chance of being caught or killed isn't worth the effort of trying to rob a place. And the odds only get worse from there as far as the burglar is concerned. The more houses that are armed, the riskier the proposition of successfully robbing the place. Bear in mind, it takes police several minutes to respond to an emergency call, but it takes only a few seconds to bring a gun to bear on an intruder in your home.

Finally, the army of a country is generally smaller than the total population of a country. Your army has guns. If your considerably higher number of civilians are also armed, it is in your best interest to treat them well, because ten halfway trained civilians will always have the advantage of superior firepower by virtue of the amount of lead they can throw into the air against your one well trained soldier. Consider also that armies, as a rule, are governed by a code of conduct that prohibits them from harming civilians. The average solider, even if told to obey orders, will balk or outright refuse to harm civilians who are unarmed, and do so more vigorously against civilians of their own country.

The people, when armed, become the ultimate check on government authority. As long as they are content, the government can remain in power. When they are no longer content and cannot replace the government by conventional means, they will resort to violence, whether they are armed or not.

If one house in ten has a gun, the odds are small that you're going to be shot or at the very least caught by the homeowner in the act. If one house in five owns a gun, the odds go up to 20%. If one in three owns a gun, the odds go up correspondingly. If one house out of two owns a gun, it becomes a coin toss.

Bad reasoning. Statistically you're more likely to have the gun taken from you and used against you than you are to use it against the burglar.

Banning guns isn't going to stop them from being used in crimes.

STRESS: Guns don't kill people; people KILL people.

STRESS: Guns don't kill people; people KILL people.

I agree!

Guns don't kill people, gaping bullet wounds in vital organs kill people!

BAN BULLETS!

If you're a paranoid gun nut, self-defense freak who's afraid that the neighbors are harboring terrorists or a member of a columbian coke ring, sponsor keeping STUN weapons legal. Why?! You can knock em' out, call the cops, and watch them get put in prison for the rest of their natural lives or perhaps die a painful death by lethal injection or electric chair (maybe it'll even fail and you'll get to watch half their brains boil! :).

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

you're twenty times more likely to die from a gun in america than you are in countries such as England and Australia where gun ownership is restricted. crime rate is also generally higher in america.

private gun ownership is just stupid and its link to increased gun deaths is just plain obvious.

you're twenty times more likely to die from a gun in america than you are in countries such as England and Australia where gun ownership is restricted. crime rate is also generally higher in america.

private gun ownership is just stupid and its link to increased gun deaths is just plain obvious.

Finland has more guns per person than the USA.... so your argument just fell to pieces

If a society can be shown that it can be trusted with guns, let 'em have them. American society has shown pretty conclusively that it can't be trusted with guns.

If a society can be shown that it can be trusted with guns, let 'em have them. American society has shown pretty conclusively that it can't be trusted with guns.
Spot on there.

If a society can be shown that it can be trusted with guns, let 'em have them. American society has shown pretty conclusively that it can't be trusted with guns.

Oh yeah. Every single of us are running around with guns shooting the place down.

I am your typical, average American. I have NOT seen ONE gun (or heard one gunshot for that matter)

It's the ignorance of people that amazes me

I cannot support this. It's a nice idea, however, I support my citizens right to carry firearms. However, they are required to go through extensive education and training, and they are not allowed to carry if 1) they are under 21. 2) they have a history including abuse (substance or physical,) Mis-use of any weapons (assault, manslaughter or any felony/misdemeanor,) 3) history of carelessness with any weapon (not keeping them stored properly,) and they are also held accountable if the firearm is used inappropretly either by the owers or anyone else.

We believe Education is the key to safe firearms and that all "accidents" and violent crimes are done due to lack of Education and Sense of Responsibility.

(Besides, this sounds more like a National Issue... not an International one.)

I didn't say anything about your typical American. I was talking about American society as a whole. The sum is not the average.
Before you start making accusations of ignorance, try to avoid misreadings that create it.

"A few bad apples spoil the bussel."

or for those not into Agriculture...

"A person is calm, rational and intelligent, PEOPLE on the other hand are panicky, illogical and stupid."

Paraphrasing Agent K from Men In Black.

[OOC] (playing Devil's Advocate) Besides, saying that the USA has the highest Gun Related Fatalities when complared to Nations that ban or restrict guns, It can equally be stated that USA also has the most dissident civilians when compared to those governments that place strict controls over their mass media like China, Vietnam, even Iraq during Saddam's reign. USA also has the highest auto Fatalities when compared to nations like Tibet, Vietnam and others where Cars are only for the rich and powerful. Besides, While Brittan placed High Restrictions on firearms, their police force were ill equipted to handle criminals armed with .22's, Only when the USA's police force heard this, and sent over their old bullet-proof vests, were the Constables of the UK able to sufficently crack down on the "gun welding nuts" with little to no casulaties on their end.

Oh, and an interesting point... I believe America is the only Nation to be born with the smell of gunpowder. Others were either split or liberated with guns, but America was born with it. Which kinda explains our love/hate relationship with these modern equalizers. [end OOC]

"A few bad apples spoil the bussel."

or for those not into Agriculture...

"A person is calm, rational and intelligent, PEOPLE on the other hand are panicky, illogical and stupid."

Paraphrasing Agent K from Men In Black.


Another is one by Terry Pratchett (roughly put): "The mathematical formula for the (lack of) intelligence of a mob is : take the average IQ of the dumbest member of the mob and divide it by the number of people in the mob".
However, I've seen individual people be extremely stupid before, so I'm not sure that that's true.



[Oh, and an interesting point... I believe America is the only Nation to be born with the smell of gunpowder. Others were either split or liberated with guns, but America was born with it. Which kinda explains our love/hate relationship with these modern equalizers. [end OOC]


OOC: Explain that last point to the Native Americans...I'm not sure if they had gunpowder before the white Americans came over.

IC : Yew thar won't be takin' our guns a' from us.
We'um need them fer huntin' and pertectin' our homes n' womenfolks n little'uns.

OOC: It is true, there are groups who don't deserve to use guns. But, by the same token, there are people who NEED guns, for their job (if they're farmers, or hunters, or in law enforcement - and guns are, according to some, dead easy to manufacture). There should probably be a gun licence test the same way there's a driver's licence test.
In fact, it was mentioned above that Finland has more guns than the USA. My question is : is Finland one of those nations with mandatory military service?
Those countries with a mandatory period of military service actually learn about guns, how to look after them, and not to rush off like an idiot and use them when they shouldn't be.
They take their guns seriously. They use them as the tool that they're supposed to be used as, rather than as some status symbol, or as some last ditch paranoid effort to protect the home. If you're going to buy a gun to protect your home and you don't want to become an "accidents in the home" statistic, then LEARN about your gun.

"A few bad apples spoil the bussel."

or for those not into Agriculture...

"A person is calm, rational and intelligent, PEOPLE on the other hand are panicky, illogical and stupid."

Paraphrasing Agent K from Men In Black.


Another is one by Terry Pratchett (roughly put): "The mathematical formula for the (lack of) intelligence of a mob is : take the average IQ of the dumbest member of the mob and divide it by the number of people in the mob".
However, I've seen individual people be extremely stupid before, so I'm not sure that that's true.



[Oh, and an interesting point... I believe America is the only Nation to be born with the smell of gunpowder. Others were either split or liberated with guns, but America was born with it. Which kinda explains our love/hate relationship with these modern equalizers. [end OOC]


OOC: Explain that last point to the Native Americans...I'm not sure if they had gunpowder before the white Americans came over.

IC : Yew thar won't be takin' our guns a' from us.
We'um need them fer huntin' and pertectin' our homes n' womenfolks n little'uns.

OOC: It is true, there are groups who don't deserve to use guns. But, by the same token, there are people who NEED guns, for their job (if they're farmers, or hunters, or in law enforcement - and guns are, according to some, dead easy to manufacture). There should probably be a gun licence test the same way there's a driver's licence test.
In fact, it was mentioned above that Finland has more guns than the USA. My question is : is Finland one of those nations with mandatory military service?
Those countries with a mandatory period of military service actually learn about guns, how to look after them, and not to rush off like an idiot and use them when they shouldn't be.
They take their guns seriously. They use them as the tool that they're supposed to be used as, rather than as some status symbol, or as some last ditch paranoid effort to protect the home. If you're going to buy a gun to protect your home and you don't want to become an "accidents in the home" statistic, then LEARN about your gun.

[OOC] There's a valid aspect to the training thing, and legitimate use. In the martial arts I've done, there's immense emphasis placed on how hugely, hugely dangerous blades can be; even with the rubber knives you start off training with you're never allowed to pick them up by the blade, toss 'em carelessly to someone or leave them lying around. It takes at least two years of regular training before you're allowed to play with real blades; by that time you have a fairly substantial respect for the things. You also realise that when the pressure's on, even in a mock-combat situation, things screw up much, much more than you'd expect.

Guns are a lot more dangerous than blades. For those who can prove they need 'em for their work, we'd support gun ownership after a very substantial training course and background checks.

That's the point. Very few from the general populace, really learns to respect the power of the gun. It's so easy, pull the trigger, and bad things go away. Blades and other "archaic" weapons takes time to learn and at the same time, you learn to respect the power, skill and responsibility.

[OOC] I don't think the Native Americans really considered themselves a nation until the White Man came. And even then, they fought for their Nation with guns bought/stolen/found/taken from the white man.

While I perfer blades (more utilitarian uses than guns) they force you to get close and personal. Thus if you want to use the blade, you must be ready to get close enough to use it. That in itself can be one deterrant for knife fights.

I didn't say anything about your typical American. I was talking about American society as a whole. The sum is not the average.
Before you start making accusations of ignorance, try to avoid misreadings that create it.

Out of the whole society...I believe only 5% uses guns to do terrible things.

5% does not represent our society as a whole

No, but that 5% has a disproportionate effect. Most drivers who speed won't kill anyone. That doesn't mean we should abolish speed limits.

Gun Bearing Pot Smoker will not abide by any UN resolution that attempts to disarm my nation. Unlike the NAZI left wing, we remain a free and Serene Republic due to the fact that we are armed.

Ban guns huh? Oh that's rich. Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage. Let's look to England and Australia for a testament to the results of a sweeping gun ban.
For instance, their gun crime against citizens rose after the ban. Gee, I thought gun prohibition would have taken care of that. Home invasions rose, personal crimes rose, assault with firearms rose. Are you seeing a pattern develop here?
Probably not. Most left wing eco-terrorist types are nothing more than Communist sympathizers (all of which should be hung) who won't be happy until every knee bows down to their heavily armed police state and military.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control. Just as the gun-grabbing dope smokers would want it. Militant-Ireland will invade every disarmed nation just to prove a point. Your civilians are your first and last line of defense. Do you really think that you can deploy your Army fast enough to hold off an invasion? Do you honestly think that some police officers are going to be a real problem to an invading Army?
If you do, you should have your head examined. The Michael Moore's of the world fail to understand why it is that private firearm ownership is so crucial to the civilian population.
Just because you want to be a victim, left open for rape, robbery, and murder, then go ahead and make yourself open to it, but don't demand that I or anyone else succumb to your delusions that banning firearms will solve the problem. Did prohibition stop everyone from drinking? Does the current war on drugs work effectively to the point that everyone is drug free? Then how on Earth will gun prohibition work? If anything it will open up a black market for weapons, worse than it is now.
The citizens of M-I are a heavily armed Republic, and for good reason. How else would my government be kept in line if they weren't?

If a society can be shown that it can be trusted with guns, let 'em have them. American society has shown pretty conclusively that it can't be trusted with guns.

Agreed. American society is one ruled by fear and paranoia by most observable evidence. Paranoia and guns do not mix.

If a society can be shown that it can be trusted with guns, let 'em have them. American society has shown pretty conclusively that it can't be trusted with guns.

Agreed. American society is one ruled by fear and paranoia by most observable evidence. Paranoia and guns do not mix.

Come to America and we'll show you paranoia and fear :twisted:

With the exception of L.A., Chicago, and New York (crime-infested cities...I'd know), we have a low amount of gun crimes.

If a society can be shown that it can be trusted with guns, let 'em have them. American society has shown pretty conclusively that it can't be trusted with guns.

Oh yeah. Every single of us are running around with guns shooting the place down.

I am your typical, average American. I have NOT seen ONE gun (or heard one gunshot for that matter)

It's the ignorance of people that amazes me

(OOC)
Nevertheless, some generalizations are true enough.

You've probably lived in better places than I have. When I was in 2nd grade, my family was very poor (and the city hadn't gentrified massively). I remember hearing gunshots in the middle of the night from blocks away.

Also, a couple years ago, at my partner's mother's house in New Hampshire (a wonderfully depressed, gun loving 'libertarian right' 'paradise' state, with a completely failing infrastructure) you could hear the hick neighbors shooting squirels in their backyards. (this lead to the sale of the house in less than a year of owning it and moving elsewhere.)

Those few people I know who owned guns didn't have the intelligence to be trusted with butter knives.
(/OOC)

Come to America and we'll show you paranoia and fear :twisted:

With the exception of L.A., Chicago, and New York (crime-infested cities...I'd know), we have a low amount of gun crimes.

IIRC New York has a relatively low crime rate per capita these days.

For what it's worth, the people of the jovian worlds feel that firearms should be heavily restricted. While stun weapons should remain free and open to use. Weapons that have a high probability of causing death and severe permanent physical damage must be restricted.

If crime deterrance is desired, than stun weapons should be sufficient.
Ichi Ni (iirc) stated an important point. Guns reduce inhibitions to killing. You don't have to get close enough to put oneself at risk. At the same time, you can stand at a great distance (not close enough to see the real results) and as a result will have less connection with the ramifications of one's actions. The same is not true of knives and swords. Guns therefore lower the inhibitions to killing. This we feel is a terrible consequence of gun use.

As a result, we feel that unregistered owners of guns should be severely punished. An alternative means would be to have tracking mechanisms placed inside all bullets--banning all non-tracked bullets.

Finally, while we have these reservations about gun use, opponents are correct in positing this is not an international issue. The future peoples of the Jovian worlds have no crime problem, unlike real nations like the U.S.

I think that guns should only use in wars and crime thinks i think
that only the army etc.. should have guns mean no townperson should have a gun only cops and army man old guns that some old got from the
can keep it but no bullets and any 1 found with a gun will go to jail for 5 years just for touching a gun not lit but some thing in the 5 to 8 i mean i dont what ppl walking aound with swords only that would be really cool but
that just me so what do you think i vote and ahout my post

if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

if someone is already breaking a law, what moral standard would keep them from breaking another law?

It is the consensus of the citizens of Bootai-Bootai that guns are not neccesary for self defense in our sort of society. However, mandrill-hunting is common, and this draconian resolution would outlaw this (since there is no provision made for hunting firearms....)

Aside from this, it is recognised that in some other countries and other types of society private ownership of firearms, even solely for self-defense, is neccesary.

Finally, the resolution is poorly written, as there are no clauses that clarify the vague law that "Civilian guns are banned- it should specify, for example, who a civilian is (are police civilians or not?), exactly under what terms they cannot own a gun, and what is left to the discretion of each individual nation. All the clauses do is give an arguement for the need to ban "civilian guns," which should be included in a preamble rather than in the main body of the resolution.

Let's look to England and Australia for a testament to the results of a sweeping gun ban.
For instance, their gun crime against citizens rose after the ban. Gee, I thought gun prohibition would have taken care of that. Home invasions rose, personal crimes rose, assault with firearms rose. Are you seeing a pattern develop here?

Guns in Australia have always been highly restricted. The only recent changes occurred in 1997 when all semi-automatic guns were banned including for sport and farming.

The rate at which crime has risen has, if anything, generally decreased.

Only organised and sophisticated criminals have weapons as opposed to every person who wants one. And organised and sophisticated criminals are much less likely to want to randomly shoot people.


However, whether or not this is an international issue to be pursued by the UN is different. There perhaps needs to be some international regulations to prohibit and restrict the underground export of guns from nations with high levels of gun production and ownership. e.g. all guns need to be marked with serial number denoting place and date of production.

There perhaps needs to be some international regulations to prohibit and restrict the underground export of guns from nations with high levels of gun production and ownership. E.g. all guns need to be marked with serial number denoting place and date of production.

I think we need less gun control, not more. You can mark YOUR guns how YOU like.

In My country, MY citizens shall have the right to have whatever guns they would like.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The rate at which crime has risen has, if anything, generally decreased.


If the rate it has risen has decreased, that means it is still increasing, just not as quickly.


There perhaps needs to be some international regulations to prohibit and restrict the underground export of guns from nations with high levels of gun production and ownership. e.g. all guns need to be marked with serial number denoting place and date of production.

Right, nations who export their guns illegally are now going to put serial numbers on them. Brilliant.

Although I can see the point of the antigunners, I can't see the reality of it, I being an armed woman, would love to live in a world with no guns, or any type of weapon that could cause pain or death to another person. I would gladly give my earthly possessions to a person that was robbing me, (I would not take the life of another for a TV or a wallet) if I knew that myself and my children would not be harmed, but knowing, as I do, that most criminals are armed, and are far less likely to part with their firearm then I am, having not jumped through the hoops that I have to own a gun. I will never let anyone take my gun away, cold dead hand, you know. But if I had a magic wand and the power to make every gun dissapear, I would be the first in line to do it.

Although I can see the point of the antigunners, I can't see the reality of it, I being an armed woman, would love to live in a world with no guns, or any type of weapon that could cause pain or death to another person. I would gladly give my earthly possessions to a person that was robbing me, (I would not take the life of another for a TV or a wallet) if I knew that myself and my children would not be harmed, but knowing, as I do, that most criminals are armed, and are far less likely to part with their firearm then I am, having not jumped through the hoops that I have to own a gun. I will never let anyone take my gun away, cold dead hand, you know. But if I had a magic wand and the power to make every gun dissapear, I would be the first in line to do it.

Perhaps we should be considering the statistical probability that you'll be robbed. And then, let us ponder what the odds that you'd actually grab the gun, in all your paranoia and use it correctly. And let us ponder whether or not in your paranoia whether you may turn the gun against somone other than a robber accidentally. Let us consider that you pull the trigger and bullets explode from the muzzle at a high velocity relative to the target and strike that target.

if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

if someone is already breaking a law, what moral standard would keep them from breaking another law?

A thought just occured to me. We want to decrease gun deaths, correct? Gun deaths by A) By children who may accidentally trigger it, or B) criminals who would use them violent robberies, etc.

A series of legislation may help ameliorate the situation through a combination of incentives and education.

1) Mandatory gun education on safety, 2) Mandatory application before purchase and registration of item. 3) Ownership granted only after attending gun education course. 4) Those found guilty of using a gun (OR carrying said weapon) automatically receive a vastly steeper sentence just for carrying a weapon and intending to use it.

using the weapon in self-defense, (ie. person A is robbing person B's house. Person B shoots person A) -- would be exempt in this case.

Crimes of passion would NOT be exempt. ie. Person A is in a relationship with person B. Person B leaves person A. Person A is jealous and goes after Person B. Person A shoots person B.

Why the incentives. If the sentence is so much greater by using a gun, the threshold of desparation to get a criminal to use a gun would increase drastically (since the stakes would be even higher). Statistically, this should have a decent chance at lowering the overall number of gun deaths.

Richardelphia- Of course a decreasing rate of increase still means it is increasing, my point is that it is not increasing as a result of gun restrictions.

And i'm not talking about governments who export guns but the underground trade that exists in places such as canada where they have a huge problem trying to stop American guns coming across the border.

I agree that gun control itself is a domestic issue but there are aspects of the larger gun problem which are of international concern.

Upper Maxwell is largely a gun free state. With guns only being used by police, military, licensed farmers, high level security guards and a small minority of only the most well organised criminals. I don't want this ruined by the illegal import of cheap guns from one of my neighbours.

Before he is shot, in the arm with a needle full of trank-juice, that is, :wink: , The Rep of Komokom is seen running through the forum, shouting what sounds like,

"NATIONAL ISSUES COVER FIRE-ARMS, NATIONAL ISSUES COVER FIRE-ARMS, ARGH, WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE NOTICE THIS, ARGH, ARGH, ARGH,"

* Or something like that, he quickly leaves, followed by two burly orderlies with large hose needles ...

:)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

With regards to the UN, this issue should be filed next to abortion as an untouchable.

That said, here are a few choice Ecopoeian/OOC views:

Statistics used to support either side of the gun ownership srgument with respect to crime are worthless. They are contradictory and frankly quite befuddling. Finland and Switzerland show that extensive gun ownership can be a positve thing. The US shows that how the opposite can be true (sorry Colodia, I'm not backing down on this point). That said, this is the kind of issu that maybe shouldn't even be left to national governments. Gun ownership in a huntin' an'a fishin' state like Vermont is possibly a good thing (isolated household with little hope of outside protection in the event of a break-in). In New York it's a disaster waiting to happen.

As a Brit, I hope to God or whomever that we don't repeal our anti-gun laws. Americans I know who have stayed in the country have often commented on how sad they would be if we took the USA approach.

The best thing I can say in favour of guns is that they may be a necessary evil in some circumstances. Let's not forget that they're raison d'etre is entirely negative.

/multiple post

/multiple post

/multiple post

A thought just occured to me. We want to decrease gun deaths, correct? Gun deaths by A) By children who may accidentally trigger it

More children are killed every year in accidents related to plastic buckets than are killed by guns. Education is not likely to reduce either number. People already know that when you pull the trigger, bullets come out.

If the sentence is so much greater by using a gun, the threshold of desparation to get a criminal to use a gun would increase drastically (since the stakes would be even higher). Statistically, this should have a decent chance at lowering the overall number of gun deaths.

You're absolutely right. Why not make the penalty for gun crimes a steep as possible... like say, the death penalty--when a person being robbed shoots back. Guns are a deterrent to crime. There is a reason people do not hold up gun stores, military installations, or police stations.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Um.. you've forgotten a bit.

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.

So, how many of these guys with guns would you class as "militia", then?

So, how many of these guys with guns would you class as "militia", then?

Generally speaking, the people who should have their guns taken away first.

Hmm... but I don't see why people cannot see that this amendment is talking about regulated armed forces, not about letting every gun waving eejit go crazy with assault weaponry.

"Guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people."

And remember, this wasn't long after the War of Independence. Of course people, in a well-regulated militia, were going to keep arms to prevent invasion.

Bit of an anachronism now, though, with America the largest military power in the world, isn't it?

Bad reasoning. Statistically you're more likely to have the gun taken from you and used against you than you are to use it against the burglar.
Can you please prove that statement?

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.

So, how many of these guys with guns would you class as "militia", then?

A well educated electorate, being necessary to the conduction of honest election, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.

So, how many of these guys with books would you class as electorate, then?

Hmm. Yeeeeees... And well regulated? I doubt you can call all the various gunowners in all of the USA a "well-regulated" militia.

"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the conduction of honest election, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

So, how many of these guys with books would you class as electorate, then?"

This kind of substitution doesn't make the original point redundant.

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.

So, how many of these guys with guns would you class as "militia", then?

A well educated electorate, being necessary to the conduction of honest election, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.

So, how many of these guys with books would you class as electorate, then?

I would class them according to the normal definition of an electorate. People owning guns in America does not automatically make them a well-regulated militia, or a security force in their own right. The point is they are not regulated, and there is clamoring for less regulation. Your point is a little fallacious, since by your wishing for a lack of regulation in gun ownership, you are in fact going against the definition stated in the Constitution. And that's hardly constitutional, is it?

First of all, you must look at the English and the structure of the sentence here. "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."

What does "being necessary" mean? It means, probably, "because it's necessary".
In other words, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What does "Right of the people" mean? It means "right of the individuals" - not the "states". I can prove this very easily. First of all, everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, the word "people" is used to mean "individuals".
Second, because the constitution directly BANS the states from keeping armed forces in times of peace.
So, to go on with my translation:
"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
So is that right an individual right? You betcha.

But wait. What's a militia? No, not the guys in camo playing soldier in the woods. "Militia", under current U.S. law, means everybody capable of bearing arms in times of war.


HEAD Sec. 311. Militia: composition and class


STATUTE (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of National Guard or the Naval Militia

I will further continue to comment that the Founders mean the word "well-regulated" to mean "properly disciplined", like soldiers.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:


[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

So the text means:

"Because, for the security of a free states, we need to have the people who can carry weapons in war to be trained to do that, the individual right to carry and own weapons will not be infringed".

Note that the text does not grant any rights. It merely prohibits infringing upon them.

Sources:
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/who_mlta.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

While I admire the US for many sound ideological and social reasons, I cannot understand the majority's attitude to guns. The statistics could not be plainer. The more guns there are in a country, the more innocent people get shot by guns. Can anyone refute this? Is there any solution other than to curb the average American's ability to get hold of a weapon? In the UK, one can obtain a gun license, but only after incredibly strict character assessment. Even then, the process for renewing the license is repeated often and is equally strict. Gun crime in Britain is, as a result, much lower per capita than guncrime in the US. I'm afraid this is one of two dangerous examples of powerful lobbies in the US. Any guesses as to the other?

By the way, Allanea, is there a difference between granting a right and protecting a right from being infringed, other than the fact that the former suggests that the right was not previously acknowledged, while the latter suggests that it has already been acknowledged? Sorry, i'm a pedant.

While I admire the US for many sound ideological and social reasons, I cannot understand the majority's attitude to guns. The statistics could not be plainer. The more guns there are in a country, the more innocent people get shot by guns. Can anyone refute this?

Easily.

Already in the late 1970's, Cambridge University researcher Colin Greenwood researched UK and US crime stats to go out and find proof of the theory that UK had less violent crime due to it's gun laws. He found that back in the time that the UK had no gun laws at all, it still had very low violent crime, even slightly lower. He also found that the US had different gun laws in every state and that it did not seem that gun laws actively reduced crime, for example, Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book "Guns and Violence: the British experience" (making the point the UK had actually lower crime before the gun ban), but that is debatable.

Further studies that made similar statements were published by the US Senate in 1982, University of Florida scholar Gary Kleck in 1992, and the US CDC in 2003. Other researches have even claimed that gun control

By the way, Allanea, is there a difference between granting a right and protecting a right from being infringed, other than the fact that the former suggests that the right was not previously acknowledged, while the latter suggests that it has already been acknowledged? Sorry, i'm a pedant.

Basically, in case A it claims that the government is the source of rights, it grants them and takes them away at will.

In case B, you already have rights and hire the government to protect them.

Guns should only be held by those responsible enough to own them, so the military in general should not have them, as they tend to shoot people with them. By extrapolation, the Police and criminals should also have their access restricted.

I think I've made it clear that I am completely anti-gun control, but I must ask, why are we arguing about the United States' Second Ammendment? Don't we have our own nations' constitutions to worry about?

Richardelphia's Bill of Rights is exactly like the United States' except that we ended ours after "1. Congress shall make no law."

RE: The US Second Amendment "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." is how it reads in the original. Note that from "A well regulated...State," is all one clause and in English a subordinate one at that. It changes not a whit the meaning of the main clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The subordinate clause could just as easily read "The right of women to shoot rapists being necessary to the prevention of PMS," and the Second Amendment would still mean the same thing in English.

What has happened since 1789 is a series of willful misinterpretations and misreadings by a Court that has grown more and more entranced with its own power than with the law or any deference to the will of the people or the intentions of our elected officials. Given that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and the only way to remove one without using force is Impeachment (something that happens more often to Presidents by far); then it doesn't look good for reigning in the Court(s) anytime soon.

In any case, firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce crime rates dramatically and increase personal safety. Gun bans merely disarm citizens leaving them helpless and at the mercy of various thugs and criminals (black market and government flavors both :twisted: ). There are plenty of real world examples of how increased gun control has increased crime in localities while increased gun ownership by law abiding citizens has the opposite effect. Of course, that little adjectival phrase "law abiding" is very important as the citizens of many a Third World Sh*th*le will attest. For example, in Mogadishu back around 1992, they had the cheapest rice in the world. It was only US $0.10/lb. Unfortunately, if you didn't have an AK-47 or were affiliated with someone who did then you didn't have any money either.

I note that in the UK in the cities that crime (especially burglary) and including violent crime is actually now worse than in the US. Since guns are illegal sales of Baseball Bats are now very popular, but Softball (Rounders) is still no more popular than before. While this is making plenty of money for the citizens of Tennessee in the US (home of the Louisville Slugger :D ) It's a sad commentary on what was only a generation ago one of the safest countries on Earth.

If you want a statistical analysis with enough proof to choke a herd of horses, I recommend starting with the works of John Lott, world-class economist and statistician.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"
"Can you see the light?" *BANG*

If the sentence is so much greater by using a gun, the threshold of desparation to get a criminal to use a gun would increase drastically (since the stakes would be even higher). Statistically, this should have a decent chance at lowering the overall number of gun deaths.

You're absolutely right. Why not make the penalty for gun crimes a steep as possible... like say, the death penalty--when a person being robbed shoots back. Guns are a deterrent to crime. There is a reason people do not hold up gun stores, military installations, or police stations.

The jovian worlds stand firmly against the use and enforcement of the death penalty. Using the threat of death as a means of reducing deaths is a horrible solution. Among other objections, the death penalty is irrevocable. If an innocent person is somehow sentenced to the death penalty by some INEVITABLE flaw in the legal system, an innocent person has his life taken away by the government. The people of the Jovian World believe it is an unacceptable scenario for an individual to be affected so wrongly by a government.

We do propose minimum maximum sentencings for carrying a gun when convicted of engaging in criminal activities. The Jovian Worlds have not decided on a requisite number of years, however.

g.e.

If one house in ten has a gun, the odds are small that you're going to be shot or at the very least caught by the homeowner in the act. If one house in five owns a gun, the odds go up to 20%. If one in three owns a gun, the odds go up correspondingly. If one house out of two owns a gun, it becomes a coin toss.

Bad reasoning. Statistically you're more likely to have the gun taken from you and used against you than you are to use it against the burglar.

site please.

this is 100% bullshit as FBI UCR stats clearly show.

While I admire the US for many sound ideological and social reasons, I cannot understand the majority's attitude to guns. The statistics could not be plainer. The more guns there are in a country, the more innocent people get shot by guns. Can anyone refute this? Is there any solution other than to curb the average American's ability to get hold of a weapon? In the UK, one can obtain a gun license, but only after incredibly strict character assessment. Even then, the process for renewing the license is repeated often and is equally strict. Gun crime in Britain is, as a result, much lower per capita than guncrime in the US. I'm afraid this is one of two dangerous examples of powerful lobbies in the US. Any guesses as to the other?

alas but you are wrong. the swiss example clearly proves so. they have universal military service and after they get out of the service, they are required to keep guns in each and every household. the US has other causes unrelated to the number of guns in circulation that keep their gun and murder rate so high. free hint: their per capita murder rate with KNIVES is higher than the per capita murder rate in TOTAL for Canada. think about that for a while.

For what it's worth, the people of the jovian worlds feel that firearms should be heavily restricted. While stun weapons should remain free and open to use. Weapons that have a high probability of causing death and severe permanent physical damage must be restricted.

If crime deterrance is desired, than stun weapons should be sufficient.
Ichi Ni (iirc) stated an important point. Guns reduce inhibitions to killing. You don't have to get close enough to put oneself at risk. At the same time, you can stand at a great distance (not close enough to see the real results) and as a result will have less connection with the ramifications of one's actions. The same is not true of knives and swords. Guns therefore lower the inhibitions to killing. This we feel is a terrible consequence of gun use.

As a result, we feel that unregistered owners of guns should be severely punished. An alternative means would be to have tracking mechanisms placed inside all bullets--banning all non-tracked bullets.

Finally, while we have these reservations about gun use, opponents are correct in positing this is not an international issue. The future peoples of the Jovian worlds have no crime problem, unlike real nations like the U.S.

track bullets? are you seriously that retarded? do you have any idea how EASY it is to make ammunition? it isn't even that hard to make guns, never mind bullets. all gun bans do is give rise to yet another black market for organized crime to move into.

people believe what they wish i guess. facts never enter into it. FBI UCR stats for example show that people who resist crime with a gun are 16 times less likely to be harmed than those who do not resist at all. further, if you remove major cites with a huge inner city ghetto and over crowding, the rural areas of the US have LOWER crime than Europe or Japan. hmmm. might be something other than guns at the root of the US homicide problem eh?

you're twenty times more likely to die from a gun in america than you are in countries such as England and Australia where gun ownership is restricted. crime rate is also generally higher in america.

private gun ownership is just stupid and its link to increased gun deaths is just plain obvious.

false. the homicide rate in the US is higher. however if you remove criminal on criminal homicides,( usually over drugs - the WOD is actually the root cause of all the US homicides the vast wealth the drug trade generates etc etc) the us crime rate drops to 'normal' levels. also, the rate of personal non-homicide crime in the US is LOWER than the UK, Australia and many European counties, etc etc. if you feel you must quote stats, at least get them right.

OOC: Contrary to popular belief, Firearms are not "Banned" or "Outlawed" in Australia. In most States, it isn't especially difficult to get a Category A&B firearms licence- allowing you to own Air Rifles, .22s, Single/Double Barrel Shotguns, as well as Bolt Action, Lever Action, Muzzle-loading, and Pump-Action Rifles. Pump Action Shotguns are Restricted and quite difficult to get, but Farmers can get access to them as well as Auto-Loading rifles. Machine Guns and SMGs are banned, and have been for as long as their have been gun laws in Australia.

There are restrictions on Handguns, which are quite hard to get, but at the end of the day the Australian Government has basically discovered that Criminals have no trouble acquiring a Firearm, and all the various Weapons laws have done is cost everyone a lot of money and piss off all the gun owners.

But at the end of the day, it is still quite possible for normal citizens to own guns for target shooting or hunting...

IC: The Empire of Roycelandia trusts all its citizens and treats them responsibly. Therefore, Roycelandian Citizens are entitled to own, as of right, any firearm they choose. All guns must be registered, but aside from that there is no restriction on the number or type of guns that can be owned.

Roycelandia has virtually no crime at all, and the right to own and carry Firearms in enshrined in our Constitution (Right below the section "The Emperor Is Always Right"). :D

The jovian worlds stand firmly against the use and enforcement of the death penalty. Using the threat of death as a means of reducing deaths is a horrible solution. Among other objections, the death penalty is irrevocable. If an innocent person is somehow sentenced to the death penalty by some INEVITABLE flaw in the legal system, an innocent person has his life taken away by the government.
.

That has to do what exactly with the use of guns in self-defense?


OOC: Contrary to popular belief, Firearms are not "Banned" or "Outlawed" in Australia. In most States, it isn't especially difficult to get a Category A&B firearms licence- allowing you to own Air Rifles, .22s, Single/Double Barrel Shotguns, as well as Bolt Action, Lever Action, Muzzle-loading, and Pump-Action Rifles. Pump Action Shotguns are Restricted and quite difficult to get, but Farmers can get access to them as well as Auto-Loading rifles. Machine Guns and SMGs are banned, and have been for as long as their have been gun laws in Australia.


I'd correct that to "Firearms useful for self-defense are virtually banned".