NationStates Jolt Archive

please read my proposal to tighten gun control laws. it seeks to eliminate all sales of guns to citizens which are not designed specifically for hunting.

also look at the Abolish Sweatshop Labor proposal.

Helps if you post a copy of the proposal here:

Tighten Gun Control Laws

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Category: Gun Control Decision: Tighten Proposed by: Maxihilism
Description: The right to bear arms is utterly archaic. It was intended so that when in times of revolution the people could pick up their rifles and fight against their government for freedom. Nations of the UN already have secured a freedom which would make such a happening absurd within any UN member nation. The only need for guns in UN Member nations is hunting and military. This resolution seeks to tighten gun control laws as follows:

eliminate the sales of all guns save those specifically designed for the purpose of hunting.

ban the concealment of any firearm in all public places.


the issue of protection is not adequate since the protection is supposedly against someone who has a gun, otherwise alternate defense mechanisms are sufficient.

National issue, move along.

Also, wouldn't really solve much of the problem. Hunting weapons include easily-sawn-off shotguns and .44 revolvers.

All arms should belong to the government, and specifically, to Giblets's government. When non-Giblets persons hold arms it encourages insolence, which is to be stamped out! Away with you, insolence!

All arms belong to Giblets! Bow before Giblets's massive arsenal! Bow before his arsenal NOOOOOOW!

Are we referring to guns, or human arms? Either way Giblets calls for a Gibletsian monopoly on arms.

First, this is a national issue, just as Rehochipe says, and should therefore be disregarded.

Second, there are more uses for guns than just hunting and protection. One is competitive shooting. It may seem stupid to make a sport out of warfare but such sports do exist. Since when has someone been murdered by Olympic sport-shooters? Never. Also, we've never tried to ban javelins, which were once war weapons/hunting tools. If you ban something under the label of banning war weapons and etc, you should ban everything that can go in that category.

Also, on concealed weapons. They do no more harm than simply carrying them in the open. Plus they allow for protection.
Now you claim that protection is unnecesary because noone will have guns. That's just stupid. There will be people who manage to keep their guns. It's empiricaly proven that bans don't work, look:
1) Several countries have banned marijauna, heroine, mescaline, meth, hashish, cocaine, crack and other drugs. Notice that they are totally unable to completely remove it all from their country. In fact, it can still be harvested in those countries.
2) Some countries have banned abortion, but rusty coat hangers thrive.
3) Banning fishing, but fishers will do near anything to get fish, even fishing in MPAs.
4) Illegal immigration. Immigrants often go through borderlines unnoticed.
So, you don't solve because banning empiricaly doesn't work.
5) War crime laws. Militaries often abuse prsioners, kill innocents, etc. and break the Geneva convention.

Next, you offer no enforcement in you proposal, and therefore you completely destroy you're solvency. Next time give us a solvency mechanism. Also you ban all guns in everything but military and hunting. Now, military: the military, naval, and air forces of a nation. Police:the department of government that keeps public order and safety, enforces the laws, and detects and prosecutes law breakers. (Merriam-Webster dictionary) Obviously, police are not members of the military. Therefore you ban the ownership of guns by police. Therefore they cannot efectively enforce this policy. Therefore there is no solvency, it is impossible for police to police when citizens are better armed than they are. Since police can't do their job effectivly people can own guns, and there is no solvency.

When people can own guns becauase of the assumed policing(which isn't listed in the resolution, and wouldn't work) it would be necesary for people to own guns in order to protect themselves. People could still own guns with the ban anyway. Ever hear of the black market? Those guns won't be used for good things.

Next you assume in the resolution that no nation needs guns for anything but hunting and military. What if their military is militia? It would be banned there, because you assume militia is archaic. They would have no way to protect themselves from Mr. Giblets.

Also, gun control is inherently non-functional and actually turns its own solvency. Several nations who ban guns face rises in crime, and I can extremely specific evidence for that. Also a law breaker may have nothing to lose and therefore possess a firearm to help him in his crimes. Law-breakers have no reason not to own guns. If they're breaking the law, why not make it easy while your at it?

You never state penalties for gun ownership. You never state enforcement.

You assume in you plan text that military solves for something unmentioned. Therefore you allow them to keep guns. Sounds like you'll just invade countries with poor militaries and slaugther their peoples.

Let nations decide on their own.

Dictator LG

Fellow Lovers of Peace and Freedom,

Repeal the ill-conceived "Fight the Axis of Evil" law!

We urge your support of the "Selective Defense Act", a proposal to end all compulsory production of weapons by UN member states.

Check out the proposal within the UN, or visit our forum post for more details.

-First Among Equals (C.O.P.)

There is no freedom among UN member states. Even if their governments are democratic and representative, they still are subject to the heavy-handed interference of the UN.

The Nazis took away the guns before they started rounding up non-Aryans. Now it's the UN's turn, and they're hunting non-socialists.

Under no circumstance will Kerubia tolerate its citizens without arms. There are times when my nation's government can not protect them, and they (the citizens) will have to do it themselves. Private ownage of firearms is also the best weapon against terrorism. Terrorists love un-armed civilians . . .

We at Kerubia, though we detested the 40 Hour Work Week and voted against it, can tolerate such proposal. Our economy can handle it, so we'll live with its passing. But we will withdraw from the UN should weapons be banned from civilian ownership.

I wouldn't worry about it. We get anti-gun proposals (and mandatory gun proposals) in great hordes every week, and none of them have ever come anywhere near quorum. People recognise that this is a national issue.

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162

I don't think that Americans are anymore 'blood-thirsty' then anybody else, so there has to be a reason why 45% of the worlds gun deaths come from a country that makes up just over 3% of the worlds population.

The reason is that if anybody wants a powerful weapon all they have to do is wait a maximum of three days.

I really hope America addresses this issue soon, another Columbine would be a huge tragedy.

And in case anybody was wondering, I'm not a crazy euro-marxist. I'm a Conservative Brit.

The Armed Republic of the New Bucks Head, the founder of the Global Allicance region, will not agree to this suggestion.

While we will not tolerate any of our citizens carrying weapons, we simply can not justify a United Nations mandate forcing other nations to adopt the same principile. It goes against the very grain in which we created our region just today.

President L Harper
New Bucks Head

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162

I don't think that Americans are anymore 'blood-thirsty' then anybody else, so there has to be a reason why 45% of the worlds gun deaths come from a country that makes up just over 3% of the worlds population.

The reason is that if anybody wants a powerful weapon all they have to do is wait a maximum of three days.

I really hope America addresses this issue soon, another Columbine would be a huge tragedy.

And in case anybody was wondering, I'm not a crazy euro-marxist. I'm a Conservative Brit.

Since you know so much about American gun-crime, I'll fill in some more facts that I'm sure you know:

States that allow CCL (Concealed Carry Laws) have less violent crime than those areas that ban CCL, the more privately owned firearms there are in an area, the less break ins, violent crime there is, and U.S. criminals think gun control is a great idea. Anyone ever heard of Sammy "The Bull" Bravado? (or whatever his last name was)

In America, the more weapons there are, the better people are. Now, I've read some articles about Britain's violent crime rates skyrocketing . . . whether this has anything to do with the fact that private owned firearms are all but banned there, is up in debate though.

Anyways, we've all heard of the studies that crime is directly related to poverty and education. And we all know the income equality and drugs in America . . .

Catholic Europe supports any proposal which seeks to restrict the sale and use of arms by the general public. Guns are extremely dangerous and the fact that a life can be taken easily shows that guns are pointless and dangerous for a member of the public to have. Banning them is safer for everyone.

British gun policy versus American gun policy?

In America, if someone is breaking into your house, you can point your shotgun in their general direction and say, "Stop, or I'll shoot." In Britian, if someone is breaking into your house, you can point your finger in their general direction and say, "Stop, or I'll say stop again."

But you know what? They're both equally valid positions, because different governments have different ideas on gun control policy. This gives me the perfect chance to put down a rule of thumb for determining if an issue is international in scope. Ask yourself:

"If Nation X is allowed to do this, what does it do to me?"

If the nation next door has mandatory gun laws, what does to that do to you? Do you live in their nation? No. You don't. So whatever policy changes happen across the border mean nothing in your country. "But Sophista," you say, "if its easier to get guns in the nation next door, all my criminals will just run over there and buy guns then come back and murder all my citizens." Interesting thought, but not relevant. That falls under the realm of international arms smuggling, already dealt with by a previous UN resolution. Note the nature of arms smuggling, how it goes over borders? Compare to the nature of national gun policy, how it stops at the border? Good.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162


Ah, the great gun control fallacy. This is an example of statistical cherry-picking at its finest. Of course gun deaths are higher in a country with more guns. Duh. But how do the statistics compare for accidental death or murder overall? Do Germans just run people over in their BMWs instead of shooting them? Do British mobsters wack informers with cricket bats?

Nobody knows, because nobody cares to do a fair and equitable study of this issue. The liberals keep trotting out their "gun death" and "gun crime" statistics as if they're actually meaningful, and the conservatives keep trotting out their statistics on violent crime rises in Britain and Australia since they went draconian on their gun control laws... statistics which are looking to be grossly inflated.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain.

And since we still know next to nothing about gun control and its effects, the UN really should stay out of it.

ut how do the statistics compare for accidental death or murder overall?

Gun crime has risen in Britain since they pretty much banned firearms.

...for utterly unrelated reasons. Nobody actually in the UK would be stupid enough to link the two.

...for utterly unrelated reasons. Nobody actually in the UK would be stupid enough to link the two.

Well, there are some! :roll:

OOC:

Well since the ban 'gun crime' would include possession of a fire arm so it only stands to reason that crime would go up.

See one reason, there are meany others don't sellect yours and rule out all others.

That being said the real world has no effect here and I will not touch this topic again with a ten foot barge pole.

OOC:

Well since the ban 'gun crime' would include possession of a fire arm so it only stands to reason that crime would go up.

Of course crime would go up, but then it would go back down once people learn to live with the new law.

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162

I don't think that Americans are anymore 'blood-thirsty' then anybody else, so there has to be a reason why 45% of the worlds gun deaths come from a country that makes up just over 3% of the worlds population.

The honourable representative for Romanorum make an interesting point, however I believe they are stating the facts a little out of context from the documentary they are gleaning the information from. My believe is that the filmmaker had a far more social, cultural and psychological point at the end of the film to explain these differences. We also agree with other members here that this is issue is very much a national issue.

It has always been our government’s policy to take a balanced approach to this issue. One cannot ban guns alone and expect a sudden decrease in gun related crime, it’s a societal issue also. Our government have instigated policies to educate the population on the effects guns can have on their communities. In addition through our employment and welfare programs seek to close the divides between rich and poor.

It is often the case that disadvantaged communities have more gun related crime. Partly, because gang culture provides a sense of belonging to some individuals where they feel it is not provider for in their community or homes. These groups are often involved in petty crime. Unfortunately that is not always where it stays, because these groups do not base belonging in the same sense a family would (By family I do not necessarily mean the nuclear family in the traditional sense). Hierarchy is often achieved by doing more and more serious crimes.

This is only one of many examples, but I believe that removing fear and fostering a sense of care for ones community there will be little need to police. It is matter of allowing a society to take responsibility for itself, whilst I believe the government should seek to set guidelines, I do not always feel they should seek to enforce. Through over enforcement comes rebelliousness, but through education comes understanding. With understanding comes intellectual debate, which is in the interest of all citizens of a nation.

Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162


Yes the numbers. Naturally statistics are inherently wrong, but I'll give some counter-statistics anyway.
As gun ownership in America went up by 70 million firearms from 1991 to 2002, violent crime went down by 35%, According to the FBI(murder down 43%, rape by 22%, robbery by 47%, aggravated assault by 28%). The fact about gun deaths on your statistics is those American gun deaths could be those of criminals. Or innocents, yes. If you must pass anti-gun legislation, at least make it gun locks or something. Banning inherently never works, see my first post.

Ban guns! make the streets safe...

Ban guns! make the streets safe...

Get some evidence. Gun banning doesn't work, Europe now faces higher crime rates than ever, along with Canada(both banned guns, both now have crime times 5). More guns is less crime, I gave evidence. Banning inherently doesn't work see my first entry.(For instance, previos gun bans haven't even worked, in both that guns still exist and that crime goes up even more as law abiders are harvested by crime commiters) Read my first post on here and you will have some very good reasons to be pro-gun. Unless you're too thick to take common sense. I told you why not to ban guns. You merely say "Ban guns, make our streets safe!" HOW does it make our streets safe, hm? Then only one anti-gun statistic is offered. I've offered a better counter statistic, in that I stated its source (the FBI) which is better than yours (mystery Joe Bob). You can't back your analytics with reasonable statements, I can and have done. You can't even provide enforcement. Or if you do its not stated in the res. Besides it uses the very ideals of the panopticon to police, if you did. So please get this horrible unnenforced, poorly written, empiricaly disproven, un-backed by properly cited evidence resolution RIGHT OUT OF THE UN!!!

Write it well, gi'me evidence, provide enforcement, cite your evidence (who wrote that Europe vs. America gun death stat. anyway?), and really think about what your saying in order to move my opinion 1 mm to the left.

"It's T time!" Cameron
"It worries me how dumb you are." Raymond
"Kritik their a## off, kiddo!" Schuster
"This card is my best dream, and panopticism is my warm blanket." Mark

"GO Moderates!!!"-Dictator LG

...for utterly unrelated reasons. Nobody actually in the UK would be stupid enough to link the two.

Well, there are some! :roll:

Gun-salesmen losing their jobs and being forced into crime?

Gun-salesmen losing their jobs and being forced into crime?

:lol:

You never know!

"is the right to bear arms archaic?"

I am un-happy, because there is no,

" Yes, cause there are many hairy people out there ! " Answer in the poll.

:wink: Okay, 1) I need help and 2) I am bored.

Oh, and before I get,

* Trumpet Fan-fare :

NATIONAL ISSUE

Though considering how often that fact gets left out in the rain ...

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162


Ah, the great gun control fallacy. This is an example of statistical cherry-picking at its finest. Of course gun deaths are higher in a country with more guns. Duh. But how do the statistics compare for accidental death or murder overall? Do Germans just run people over in their BMWs instead of shooting them? Do British mobsters wack informers with cricket bats?

Nobody knows, because nobody cares to do a fair and equitable study of this issue. The liberals keep trotting out their "gun death" and "gun crime" statistics as if they're actually meaningful, and the conservatives keep trotting out their statistics on violent crime rises in Britain and Australia since they went draconian on their gun control laws... statistics which are looking to be grossly inflated.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain.

And since we still know next to nothing about gun control and its effects, the UN really should stay out of it.
American murder rates are higher by a similar order of magnitude for all forms of murder. They kill each other with knives much more often than we do too. America is more violent, it's nothing to do with guns.

A more scientific study of gun control would be between different US states with varying strictness of gun control laws. This shows gun control INCREASES crime.

Quote from Dr Mary J Ruwart's "healing our world"

"Defending oneself with a handgun makes sense: a victim who submits is twice as likely to be injured as a victim who resists with a gun. Defending oneself without a gun, however, results in injury more often than submission. (9) By the late 1970s, armed citizens were killing more criminals in self-defense than the police. (10)

Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14)

Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16)

Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay.

Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent."

Here's a few numbers for everybody to think about:

USA gun deaths 2003: 38,000
Europe gun deaths 2003: 162


Ah, the great gun control fallacy. This is an example of statistical cherry-picking at its finest. Of course gun deaths are higher in a country with more guns. Duh. But how do the statistics compare for accidental death or murder overall? Do Germans just run people over in their BMWs instead of shooting them? Do British mobsters wack informers with cricket bats?

Nobody knows, because nobody cares to do a fair and equitable study of this issue. The liberals keep trotting out their "gun death" and "gun crime" statistics as if they're actually meaningful, and the conservatives keep trotting out their statistics on violent crime rises in Britain and Australia since they went draconian on their gun control laws... statistics which are looking to be grossly inflated.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain.

And since we still know next to nothing about gun control and its effects, the UN really should stay out of it.
American murder rates are higher by a similar order of magnitude for all forms of murder. They kill each other with knives much more often than we do too. America is more violent, it's nothing to do with guns.

A more scientific study of gun control would be between different US states with varying strictness of gun control laws. This shows gun control INCREASES crime.

Quote from Dr Mary J Ruwart's "healing our world"

"Defending oneself with a handgun makes sense: a victim who submits is twice as likely to be injured as a victim who resists with a gun. Defending oneself without a gun, however, results in injury more often than submission. (9) By the late 1970s, armed citizens were killing more criminals in self-defense than the police. (10)

Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14)

Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16)

Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay.

Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent."

Some more properly cited evidence. Good job on research. Know why, again are guns truly bad, Mr. founder of this thread? Or can you not provide evidence to back your claims? Guns aren't bad.

Dicataor LG

No more rebutes from the anti-gunners? To bad. This would have been a fun pre-determined victory, knowing guns are good.

Shame,
Dictator LG