NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to welcome anyone to comment on the Gun Ownership Restriction Act. I do feel that gun control is a very important issue so I really want this proposal to achieve quorum.

For those regional delegates out there who are not voting for this proposal: why not? What could be changed to make you more inclined to vote for it?

Could you post a copy of it here as well?

In my signature is the North Pacific forum. They and most of the Pacifics are another great place to take draft proposals for feedback.

I've personally been curious to see how Gun Control would happen in the NS UN. To date only one proposal made it to the floor as a resolution, and it failed. That said my general advice is to find a way to describe your resolution / and the problem in international terms. I think this would help nations see your proposal as an international issue and not a domestic one.

I think gun control would be detrimental to all of our nations. Using common sense, only the criminals would own the guns again. The result would be higher crime rates with illegal guns against the defenseless. This is something I will not vote for.

I think gun control would be detrimental to all of our nations. Using common sense, only the criminals would own the guns again. The result would be higher crime rates with illegal guns against the defenseless. This is something I will not vote for.

This isn't to say that my nation is in favour or against this proposal, because we've not seen it, but please bear in mind that gun control could include simply requiring all nations to submit to the UN a registery of all legal gun owners. Why this might be done, I'm not sure ... but control doesn't always equate "restriction".

It would start out as just registration, then possibly get more restricted. What good will this registration do anyways?

J-exico: Do you support the provisions of the resolution outlawing certain guns which "have no justifiable purpose in the hands of private citizens other than criminal, or otherwise offensive purposes"?

Here is a copy of the resolution:

WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

RECOGNISING that

a) guns pose a danger to all people in member states,

b) gun ownership for the purpose of personal protection can pose as great a danger as the threat that incited ownership,

c) there exists guns that have no justifiable purpose in the hands of private citizens other than criminal, or otherwise offensive, purposes,

d) guns are often used in the commission of a criminal offence,

RESOLVE that

1. Any person who owns or trades and any manufacturer who manufactures or trades and any reseller who trades a gun in violation of this resolution must be prosecuted.

2. Governments, or an agency of governments, must retain a private record of all guns owned by private citizens within its borders.

3. A person must declare to the government or its agency when he or she comes to own a gun and when he or she ceases to own a gun or be prosecuted.

4. Governments must publish a list of guns which private citizens are prohibited from owning and guns which only certain private citizens may own.

5. The content of the aforementioned list is at the discretion of each member state; however it is the responsibility of each member state to prohibit and/or limit private ownership of guns which have no justifiable purpose in the hands of private citizens in its society other than criminal or otherwise offensive purposes.

6. Manufacturers and resellers are prohibited from selling guns which private citizens are prohibited from owning to such private citizens and are prohibited from selling guns which only certain private citizens may own to a private citizen other than those certain private citizens.

7. If the government, or an agency of the government, finds a gun which private citizens are prohibited from owning to be used legally by no other group, including but not limited to security, law enforcement and military, the manufacturer of this gun must cease manufacturing this gun immediately and resellers of this gun must cease selling this gun immediately.

8. Gun ownership for the purpose of personal protection is prohibited.

9. A private citizen may only own a gun if he or she has been issued a gun license.

10. A private citizen may only be issued a gun license if he or she either:
a) is a member of a shooting club,
b) requires a gun for legal farming, hunting, or related purposes,
c) is employed or is seeking to be employed to provide legal private security, if it is allowed in the member state and in accordance with the laws of the member state.

11. A private citizen may additionally only own a gun that will be used for the purposes of which they were issued the gun license.

12. A gun license must indicate for what purpose the license was issued so as to indicate the types of guns that the license holder may own.

13. A manufacturer or reseller must only sell a gun to a holder of a gun license, and only if the gun is to be used for the purposes of which the license was issued.

14. The owner of a gun must store the gun safely and securely without ammunition at all times when the gun is not being used.

15. A private citizen must not carry a gun in a public place, with the exception of legal private security if it is allowed in the member state.

16. The owner of a gun, using a gun for legal private security, as much as practicably possible, must only carry a gun while currently providing legal private security.

Apologies, but I regard this as an unacceptable infringement of national sovereignty. In Ecopoeia's case, we don't even legislate on a national level but instead leave it to communities to decide their own policies on the issue.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The representative of Aeruillin would like to comment that "criminal" is not a special signification for a certain group of people who will stop at nothing and nobody to acquire weaponry. Rather, there are criminals at different levels of severity and lawlessness, thus many who are prevented from getting a gun legally will *not* go on to get one illegally.

"To liken Gun Control to Gun Illegalization is idiocy," he goes on to say. "Tightened Gun Control means that people will go through more screening and tests and formalities to get a gun - weeding out mainly those with a 'gray' background who are not hard-core criminals but who don't have a clean record either.

"The vast majority of those who will be prevented by Gun Control acts from possessing guns are prevented so for a reason. For example, if they are known to have psychological liabilities that may cause irresponsible action. Or if they have a record of committing crimes of violence.

"The vast majority of those who will be prevented by Gun Control acts from possessing guns are also not trying so hard to get a gun they will attempt to get one illegally.

"Ergo, a tiny minority of people who could harmlessly be supplied with guns (and in today's society, how many are those?) would unjustifiably be prevented, a tiny group of people who will get guns any way they want will get them (and they would get them either way), while a lot of people who should *not* get guns will be prevented, and will therefore be less danger to society.

"Also, Gun Control is not just limited to the sale of guns. It would mean, for example, that police are required to demand a weapon's license from any person they see carrying a weapon, and confiscate it if they don't have one.

"Gun Control is not a stricter law, it is a stricter policy in law *enforcement*. Laws can be broken by criminals, law enforcement has to be evaded. Thus, tightened Gun Control would indeed lower the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals.

"Plus," he adds, "it would give a hard time to all those redneck rightwingnuts who always think carrying lethal weaponry is a divine right of liberty."

d) guns are often used in the commission of a criminal offence,


As are swords, axes, knives, sometimes forks and very occasionally spoons.

And in my nation there are long bows, cross-bows, wands, staffs and various magic spells. Not to mention catapults and spikey battering rams.

Why enforce gun control across all nations and not axe control?

I am not in favour of everyone having guns - I think we just passed a law that said even the police should be unarmed in my nation - but I am not so conceited that I think I know what is best for all the other UN nations.


Though seriously - forks are more dangerous than they look :}

Though seriously - forks are more dangerous than they look :}

Aye. It's actually relatively easy to kill someone with a ballpoint pen.

Also, I'll note that I oppose this on the usual OMG national sovereignty! grounds.

Aye. It's actually relatively easy to kill someone with a ballpoint pen.

Is that the source of the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword" :}

As are swords, axes, knives, sometimes forks and very occasionally spoons.

And in my nation there are long bows, cross-bows, wands, staffs and various magic spells.

There is no reason you can't make domestic laws to outlaw magic. I'd rather take my chances with a fool armed with a magic spell or sword than somebody carrying a gun.


But all this reminded me of Velvet Acid Christ's "Fun with Drugs" from Fun with Knives which took the following movie sample:


You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back
on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye.

+2 pts to the first person to place the quote ;)

Of course I'm currently listening to s.i.n.a..

There is no reason you can't make domestic laws to outlaw magic. I'd rather take my chances with a fool armed with a magic spell or sword than somebody carrying a gun.


I accept that some people don't believe magic can be as dangerous as a gun, but that wasn't really my point :}

Guns seem to be singled out as dangerous weapons we should not give people, when there are other weapons that are equally dangerous that get ignored because they are not a cause people can rally behind. Someone can hack up their entire family with an axe and no one will give a damn. But one person shoots another person with a gun and it's amazing news all over the place, and there are instant calls for gun control and so forth.

I have no objection to gun control. I have no objection to no gun control. But it should be a national issue, not something that the UN gets to enforce on everyone.

The representative of Aeruillin would like to comment that "criminal" is not a special signification for a certain group of people who will stop at nothing and nobody to acquire weaponry. Rather, there are criminals at different levels of severity and lawlessness, thus many who are prevented from getting a gun legally will *not* go on to get one illegally.

"To liken Gun Control to Gun Illegalization is idiocy," he goes on to say. "Tightened Gun Control means that people will go through more screening and tests and formalities to get a gun - weeding out mainly those with a 'gray' background who are not hard-core criminals but who don't have a clean record either.

"The vast majority of those who will be prevented by Gun Control acts from possessing guns are prevented so for a reason. For example, if they are known to have psychological liabilities that may cause irresponsible action. Or if they have a record of committing crimes of violence.

"The vast majority of those who will be prevented by Gun Control acts from possessing guns are also not trying so hard to get a gun they will attempt to get one illegally.

"Ergo, a tiny minority of people who could harmlessly be supplied with guns (and in today's society, how many are those?) would unjustifiably be prevented, a tiny group of people who will get guns any way they want will get them (and they would get them either way), while a lot of people who should *not* get guns will be prevented, and will therefore be less danger to society.

"Also, Gun Control is not just limited to the sale of guns. It would mean, for example, that police are required to demand a weapon's license from any person they see carrying a weapon, and confiscate it if they don't have one.

"Gun Control is not a stricter law, it is a stricter policy in law *enforcement*. Laws can be broken by criminals, law enforcement has to be evaded. Thus, tightened Gun Control would indeed lower the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals.

"Plus," he adds, "it would give a hard time to all those redneck rightwingnuts who always think carrying lethal weaponry is a divine right of liberty."

OHHH you mean........"background checks"??? Yea those right wing nuts that want to protect their homes...gotta do something about them...There are always ways criminals can get illegal guns(imports, black market), and are only more apt to use them when the public doesn't have them. I hear this is just a further background check, yet it is another step in the ladder.

I accept that some people don't believe magic can be as dangerous as a gun, but that wasn't really my point :}


Actually, I'd love it if the mods would have allowed the undead rights proposal to hit the floor months ago, because the Mikitivity Magic Guild was eager to promote an international security resolution restricting "Necromancy" to only qualified spell casters. ;)

I'm sure even the Undead states would have approved of the MMG's position on Necromancy.


Guns seem to be singled out as dangerous weapons we should not give people, when there are other weapons that are equally dangerous that get ignored because they are not a cause people can rally behind. Someone can hack up their entire family with an axe and no one will give a damn. But one person shoots another person with a gun and it's amazing news all over the place, and there are instant calls for gun control and so forth.

I have no objection to gun control. I have no objection to no gun control. But it should be a national issue, not something that the UN gets to enforce on everyone.

Two thoughts here ... I think you are right about the domestic nature of gun control, but I do see that the subject in general can be crafted into an international position in a few ways.

As for axe murders, the difference between an axe and a gun, is largely based on the intent of the tool. Axes not only are useful in hacking off limbs of people, but are far better at chopping wood (which is increasingly becoming unpopular in the NS UN) than using pet beavers. ;)

Guns really have no other purpose than to kill things, making them very easy targets for national governments to regulate. Even wands have other purposes, like being used as nose pickers or back scratchers (both of course are rather unpleasant uses, but hey). :)

What Palisraelestine is talking about is not just background checks.

"a) guns pose a danger to all people in member states,

b) gun ownership for the purpose of personal protection can pose as great a danger as the threat that incited ownership,"

With this kind of mentality to start it off, it sounds to me like it's on its way to outlawing all guns. At least very restrictive. To the point, no law abiding citizen will jump through all the hoops to own one, when the criminal has to go through none.

"J-exico: Do you support the provisions of the resolution outlawing certain guns which "have no justifiable purpose in the hands of private citizens other than criminal, or otherwise offensive purposes"?"

Only criminal or offensive purposes? Such as? If someone wants to go out in their desert and plink, why stop them? You make it seem like criminals will also be following these laws. If he buys an automatic weapon off the black market, why do I have to shoot back with a bolt action? Throw rocks(if this makes it through and continues to complete restriction, which is the direction it's going)?

Swords are quite dangerous. I'd rather get shot with a 7.62x39mm many times than get sliced in half with a sword.

And again, why do you need a list of the LEGAL gun owners? It's only the next step in taking away all guns, and instead of searching for them, you can just look up the addresses. Someday a supreme dictator may take away all guns from its people to leave them defenseless to the government, and all they'll have to do is get a copy of the list from the UN.

No thanks..

OHHH you mean........"background checks"??? Yea those right wing nuts that want to protect their homes...gotta do something about them...There are always ways criminals can get illegal guns(imports, black market), and are only more apt to use them when the public doesn't have them. I hear this is just a further background check, yet it is another step in the ladder.

See this is where you lose me on the anti-gun control thing.

So you thing people should have a right to defend their homes with guns just because they can? And when someone you love is killed by someone who was just "defending their home" - would you think they had the right then?

Guns really have no other purpose than to kill things, making them very easy targets for national governments to regulate. Even wands have other purposes, like being used as nose pickers or back scratchers (both of course are rather unpleasant uses, but hey). :)

Firstly I have never used a wand to pick my nose - imagine if it went off by accident? Ewwwwwww!!

Anyways - guns can be used for sport. Shooting at targets. I hear people do it in major international competitions now, though that could just be a rumour.

A gun is just a tool, like an axe, or a pet beaver, or a wand.

Guns really have no other purpose than to kill things, making them very easy targets for national governments to regulate. Even wands have other purposes, like being used as nose pickers or back scratchers (both of course are rather unpleasant uses, but hey). :)

If you don't know the other uses for guns, say hello to ignorance. Oh, wait. You already did. Bravo...

See this is where you lose me on the anti-gun control thing.

So you thing people should have a right to defend their homes with guns just because they can? And when someone you love is killed by someone who was just "defending their home" - would you think they had the right then?

If he was defending his home then he did nothing wrong. He should be able to protect his belongings. The person I love is fricken stupid for trying to rob someone's house. If they get shot, it's their fault. Sure I feel bad, but they did what they had to to defend themselves. What's wrong with protecting yourself? You can't just murder someone on the streets and say you were defending your home.

If he was defending his home then he did nothing wrong. He should be able to protect his belongings. The person I love is fricken stupid for trying to rob someone's house. If they get shot, it's their fault. Sure I feel bad, but they did what they had to to defend themselves. What's wrong with protecting yourself? You can't just murder someone on the streets and say you were defending your home.

So an unarmed guy (with no gun whatsoever) breaks in to someones house because his kid his starving and he needs to feed them, and you are quite happy to have someone kill this unarmed guy (with no gun whatsoever) and say there is nothing wrong in that?

If you can defend your house, you should be able to defend your person. Say if you are walking alone at night, and it's dark, and you hear someone behind you you think could be a mugger, or a rapist, then - by the logic of defending your home - you should be allowed to defend your person from being mugged or raped by shooting the person on the street.

And what if you hear a noise outside your home? Are you allowed to shoot someone who is prowling around in your garden, because they are about to break in to your house?

There is a reason we have a police force in TilEnca - it's to stop people taking the law in to their own hands.

Firstly I have never used a wand to pick my nose - imagine if it went off by accident? Ewwwwwww!!

Anyways - guns can be used for sport. Shooting at targets. I hear people do it in major international competitions now, though that could just be a rumour.

A gun is just a tool, like an axe, or a pet beaver, or a wand.

In the hands of MacGiver maybe ... but in reality it is a tool designed to kill. I've heard of very few rednecks that use guns to turn the channels on their television.

The sports in question are all based on basically 'hunting'. This isn't to suggest that hunting is bad, but the reason guns (like drugs) are regulated by many governments (certainly not all governments in NS) is that they do have a profound impact on our nations.

I've seen very few nations in favour of domestic or international gun control issues suggest that guns are the only problem. And I actually believe a few of them would be happy to talk about resolutions on "The Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands" too! (Assuming of course that the moderators wouldn't firebomb a nation for seriously submitting such a proposal.) ;)

In the hands of MacGiver maybe ... but in reality it is a tool designed to kill. I've heard of very few rednecks that use guns to turn the channels on their television.


But what if you comically get locked in a dungeon and the only way out is to shoot off the lock on the door? However will you escape if you have no gun? (I could go in to a long rant about using your shoelaces and some sticky-backed plastic, but I think that would be going off topic somewhat!)


The sports in question are all based on basically 'hunting'. This isn't to suggest that hunting is bad, but the reason guns (like drugs) are regulated by many governments (certainly not all governments in NS) is that they do have a profound impact on our nations.


But shooting at a target is not killing anything. Just the target, and since that is generally metal, wood or paper I am pretty sure it doesn't feel any pain. (Anyone who wants to say trees feel pain, please resist the urge to do so as I will just ignore you anyway)



I've seen very few nations in favour of domestic or international gun control issues suggest that guns are the only problem.


But no one ever tries to regulate anything else.


And I actually believe a few of them would be happy to talk about resolutions on "The Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands" too! (Assuming of course that the moderators wouldn't firebomb a nation for seriously submitting such a proposal.) ;)

(smirk) You can have my wand when you pry it out of..... actually you can just have it whenever you want it. The wand doesn't work for anyone but me, so what are you going to do with it anyway? Build a really small fence? (And on a totally off topic note - a real magic user doesn't need a wand. It's just useful for channeling. So even if you take my wand I could probably get it back with very little hassle! And wow - this is more off topic than I have been in a long time. But I like talking about magic, and I rarely get to do it in my job as President!)

You have no idea how much I want to submit a "wand control" resolution right now, just to see if I am ever allowed back in to the UN again :}

So an unarmed guy (with no gun whatsoever) breaks in to someones house because his kid his starving and he needs to feed them, and you are quite happy to have someone kill this unarmed guy (with no gun whatsoever) and say there is nothing wrong in that?

No there is nothing wrong with that. You don't break into other people's houses for whatever reason. It's called STEALING and INVASION OF PRIVACY. They are ILLEGAL. When you enter someone's property with the intention of stealing, you take a risk. If you get shot, you knew it wasn't right before you did it. Go to a homeless shelter and get some food or something.

If you can defend your house, you should be able to defend your person. Say if you are walking alone at night, and it's dark, and you hear someone behind you you think could be a mugger, or a rapist, then - by the logic of defending your home - you should be allowed to defend your person from being mugged or raped by shooting the person on the street.

It's the basic right of self defense. Of course you can defend yourself and your property. If someone is bothering you when you walk down the street, it is right to suspect, but they have to make the first move. If they try to take something, you shoot them. It's self defense. If they jump on you, you shoot them. It's self defense. By letting them go, you only promote it i.e.: there's no punishment for it. If you have a gun, and they know it, or at least suspect it because people can own guns(which means you may be one of the gun owners), you are less likely to be attacked because they know there is a possibility of being killed.

And what if you hear a noise outside your home? Are you allowed to shoot someone who is prowling around in your garden, because they are about to break in to your house?

Yes if they are on your property looking for a place to break in, it's called self defense. Quit giving the criminals more rights than the people. When they break in to someone's house with a malicious intent, you don't let them do it, and say "oh while you're at it, here take the tv". You stop it. Prevent it. If you know it's going to happen, don't wait until they're taking your stuff out the door, or raping your kids, or preparing to shoot you and your wife in the face.

There is a reason we have a police force in TilEnca - it's to stop people taking the law in to their own hands.

Does everyone have their own personal police or are they just superhuman? It only takes a minute to run in and grab something and kill you and run out. Nobody would ever know. If you call the police, they won't be there even 2 or 3 minutes, much less one minute, the time it takes to break in, take your stuff, kill you, and leave. Sometimes when there's a problem that needs immediate fixing, you have to take the law into your own hands. It could be life or death.

In the hands of MacGiver maybe ... but in reality it is a tool designed to kill. I've heard of very few rednecks that use guns to turn the channels on their television.

The sports in question are all based on basically 'hunting'. This isn't to suggest that hunting is bad, but the reason guns (like drugs) are regulated by many governments (certainly not all governments in NS) is that they do have a profound impact on our nations.

I've seen very few nations in favour of domestic or international gun control issues suggest that guns are the only problem. And I actually believe a few of them would be happy to talk about resolutions on "The Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands" too! (Assuming of course that the moderators wouldn't firebomb a nation for seriously submitting such a proposal.) ;)

It is not a tool designed just to kill. Just like an axe is used for cutting wood, a gun can be used to shoot targets(personal experience). Shooters are the safest people to be around. You don't see a mentally unstable(retarded..gotta be politically correct..) person running into a crowd where everyone has a shotgun and start shooting the place up. If they did, they would not last but 2 seconds and they would be cut down by two sensible people with shotguns. Other than that, your ignorance is showing if they're tools "just to kill".

They do have a profound impact, and lots of crime would be prevented if everyone had one. Nobody would attack anyone, because they know that if they do, they WILL be shot. Nobody starts trouble because of the fear of death. It doesn't matter how tight you make the laws on guns, you will never stop a criminal from obtaining anything he wants. The definition of a criminal is someone that doesn't follow the laws. What makes you think he'll follow this one? (BTW, if you look at real life statistics, you see that crime in England and Australia has jumped by extreme amounts after banning guns. You can guess why..Criminals had no fear of deadly retaliation when they attacked, making innocent people targets. Oddly, most of the weapons used in the crimes are ILLEGAL GUNS)

Maybe you should crack down on the criminals a little harder than restrict the public's ownership of guns. Your laws won't do anything to impede the criminal's will. You need to go deeper than that.

It is not a tool designed just to kill. Just like an axe is used for cutting wood, a gun can be used to shoot targets(personal experience). Shooters are the safest people to be around. You don't see a mentally unstable(retarded..gotta be politically correct..) person running into a crowd where everyone has a shotgun and start shooting the place up. If they did, they would not last but 2 seconds and they would be cut down by two sensible people with shotguns. Other than that, your ignorance is showing if they're tools "just to kill".

This is based on the dangerous assumption that the majority of humanity is sensible. Take a minute of objectively looking at the world, the state it is now in, the things that happen. Are more than, say, 20% of the world's population sensible?

In your example: A mentally unstable person would do that, yes. If they don't have the judgement to avoid running amok, they don't have the common sense to avoid attacking a heavily armed group of people.

Result: One person is killed who might have been better off in a mental institution or drug rehabilitation. I don't suppose you want to shoot all the mentally disadvantaged?

Another result: Several persons may be killed by the amok runner before the "sensible" shooters can react (if carrying a gun is normal, you won't shoot someone until he starts shooting). Guns in everyone's hands don't stabilize a conflict, they destablize it.

Another result: Several more people may be killed by the "sensible" people missing - it's not easy to fire inside a crowd, especially if you're defending yourself and have to act quickly.

YET another result: At the sound of gunshots, it's very hard to figure out who's shooting to attack and who's shooting to defend the group (civilians and maniacs don't have uniforms you know). A small panic will break out, and several people may shoot the "sensible" people rather than the amok runner. In turn, someone else may mistakenly shoot *them*. Once that happens, all the sensible people are sensibly shooting at each other to defend the general populace against the amok runner, who is long shot and already covered by the other dead.

End tally: 23 dead in general shootout.

Alternative: People who want to buy a gun must have their criminal record examined for past crimes of violence (examining a criminal record cannot count as a breach of privacy - if you can't vote as a felon, why should you get a gun?), their medical record examined for mental instabilities (a doctor could do that without disclosing the actual content, just giving an official opinion of the person's mental state), and must perform a test to verify their responsibility and competence with handling firearms. Result: The maniac doesn't *have* a gun. Instead he goes to clobber up the people with his fist, or maybe with a knife. He is quickly taken down by two "sensible" people with firearms, who shoot him in the leg or the feet and thus incapacitate him without killing him.

End tally: None dead, 2-3 injured by knife wounds, one injured by shots.

Any further comments?

But what if you comically get locked in a dungeon and the only way out is to shoot off the lock on the door? However will you escape if you have no gun? (I could go in to a long rant about using your shoelaces and some sticky-backed plastic, but I think that would be going off topic somewhat!)


That much should be obvious ... you use your teleporting dog to take you out! :p

Or you take off your belt and get the keys sitting across the room by flinging your belt towards the keys. This usually takes 5-10 minutes and a commerial break, but it works.

No self respecting muggle need ever use a gun.


But shooting at a target is not killing anything. Just the target, and since that is generally metal, wood or paper I am pretty sure it doesn't feel any pain. (Anyone who wants to say trees feel pain, please resist the urge to do so as I will just ignore you anyway)


Well, Frisbeeteria called me arrogant for ignoring the weapons needs of deep space creatures ... I'm sure he would come in here and call you arrogant now for hurting the feeling (notice I used the singluar sense of the word) for suggesting that robots (made of metal and of which there are plenty of robot nations in Nation States) would not mind having their paint jobs scuffed up by bullets, especially those armor piercing kinds that are "designed for target practice and never to kill people".


But no one ever tries to regulate anything else.


Try:

Gambling,
Drugs,
Sexual Preference,
Prostitution,
Suicide,
Abortion, and ... *drumroll*
Religion

This subjects are regulated in tons of UN proposals. Thankfully most of them stand less a chance of reaching the UN floor than the Zombie Rights acts from this past summer.


(smirk) You can have my wand when you pry it out of..... actually you can just have it whenever you want it. The wand doesn't work for anyone but me, so what are you going to do with it anyway? Build a really small fence? (And on a totally off topic note - a real magic user doesn't need a wand. It's just useful for channeling. So even if you take my wand I could probably get it back with very little hassle! And wow - this is more off topic than I have been in a long time. But I like talking about magic, and I rarely get to do it in my job as President!)

You have no idea how much I want to submit a "wand control" resolution right now, just to see if I am ever allowed back in to the UN again :}

Actually I do.

I want a "Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands" resolution as well. ;) You know ... we can still write the proposal, and then bypass the proposal process and instead of having a "resolution" have a "voluntary convention". We'd debate the convention for a full month, make amendments (which each would be voted on using a forum poll), and then at the end of the month, nations could choose to sign or not sign the "Convention on the Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands". It would not be a UN Convention, but something open to all nations ... UN members and non members. Um, we might have to do this in the gameplay forum, because while the moderators actually have a sense of humour (though it is purely sadistic --> "brutal, and cruel, and dark"), their humour has limits too.

I'm guessing that a "Convention of the Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands" would probably have the support of the Harry Potter, the White-Wolf, Pagan, and the Goth regions. Of course, the "Industrial" and Future Tech regions would consider the Convention a threat, but I always think they should adopt their own "Fundamental Laws of Robotics" and "Mass Driver Use Ban Treaty". ;)

Sadly the NS UN is pretty damn restrictive, but we can still debate abortion and sexual preference all day long. (Actually a serious topic I'd love to one day revisit would be STI prevention.)

(BTW, if you look at real life statistics, you see that crime in England and Australia has jumped by extreme amounts after banning guns. You can guess why..Criminals had no fear of deadly retaliation when they attacked, making innocent people targets. Oddly, most of the weapons used in the crimes are ILLEGAL GUNS)



OOC:
While I think "Gun Control" would be (and probably is) a great high school debate topic, I'm guessing that for every law-enforcement agency you can find that says gun control is a bad idea, that I can find an equal number of real-life facts and opinions from law-enforcement agencies saying it is a great idea.

I do find it interesting though that Germans have pointed out to me that "the American love of guns, is no different than the German love of our Autobahn. The Autobahn and no speed limits results in horrible deaths, but our nation identifies with it and that will not change."

Anyway, a good neutral site would be the Wiki topic on Gun Politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_US

Bottom line I got from the article, nobody really knows. My honest opinion is that a one-size-fits all idea in either direction is a bad idea. I see both sides often arguing this, but neither side really seems to understand that in some communities their theories may not be as valid as in others.

But knock yourself out ... post those real world links. I *honestly* would be eager to read them, and I think taking the debate away from just conjecture to actual evidence on both sides would be a good thing.

And all that said, I think a relevant NS UN resolution with local solutions can actually be drafted.

Recognizing that obesity is fast becoming the leading cause of preventable death among human beings,

Acknowledging that negligent, and or volitional, and or intentional use of eating utensils may aid in the consumption of food in excess of the amount necessary for sustenance,

Further Acknowledging that consumption of food in excess of that needed for sustenance leads to obesity,

Realizing that banning utensils outright is a ridiculous idea that has no data demonstrating that a decrease obesity rates would occur if eating utensils are banned,

Observing that the rationale for and against banning eating utensils follows logically from those reason which lead to the UN Banning Firearms,

Thus, for the sake of consistency,

Be it Resolved by the United Nations that any and all utensils used for food consumption are hereby banned.

OOC: I'm just wondering... have any of you heard of the Port Arthur massacre? A few years back, but I'm sure it still relates to this topic. I am relating this from memory, so some of the details may not be quite correct.

Basic story is: mentally unstable man finds an automatic rifle, takes it down to the town centre, kills more than 30 people. No warning.

Response: National government puts a national gun buyback scheme, in which all automatic and some semi-automatic weapons are bought by the police. They are then banned for private ownership. In my opinion, the best thing the Howard government has ever done.

Since then, we haven't had a major incident involving such weapons. Martin Bryant was not a hardened criminal working through the underground, he was, and to my knowledge still is, mentally unstable. If those weapons had been banned then, the massacre would not have happened.

This is to say that I agree with the proposal as a person, but keep reading and you will see my in-game response.

IC: The Council of Enn does not believe in private ownership of pistols, rifles, machine guns, shotguns or any other type of gun. Only in exceptional circumstances will a gun license be handed out. Crime is unknown.
However, other nations believe in the right to bear arms, and while we do not understand why this is, we accept their stance. We do not see this as a matter for international jurisdiction.

On the matter of "Peaceful Uses of Magic Wands":
The Council of Enn would be most interested in such a proposal. It is always good to know what other nations are doing in terms of magic. We don't use wands, however. The Council works as a circle of power when needed.

No there is nothing wrong with that. You don't break into other people's houses for whatever reason. It's called STEALING and INVASION OF PRIVACY. They are ILLEGAL. When you enter someone's property with the intention of stealing, you take a risk. If you get shot, you knew it wasn't right before you did it. Go to a homeless shelter and get some food or something.


If the person who was breaking in to the house was caught by the police, would they be executed for their crime?


It's the basic right of self defense. Of course you can defend yourself and your property. If someone is bothering you when you walk down the street, it is right to suspect, but they have to make the first move. If they try to take something, you shoot them. It's self defense. If they jump on you, you shoot them. It's self defense. By letting them go, you only promote it i.e.: there's no punishment for it. If you have a gun, and they know it, or at least suspect it because people can own guns(which means you may be one of the gun owners), you are less likely to be attacked because they know there is a possibility of being killed.


Do you excute muggers? Do you execute rapists?

And what if the person doesn't jump on them, but just looks like they are acting suspicious? Can you shoot them then in a pre-emptive manner?


Yes if they are on your property looking for a place to break in, it's called self defense. Quit giving the criminals more rights than the people. When they break in to someone's house with a malicious intent, you don't let them do it, and say "oh while you're at it, here take the tv". You stop it. Prevent it. If you know it's going to happen, don't wait until they're taking your stuff out the door, or raping your kids, or preparing to shoot you and your wife in the face.


No it's not!! If they haven't broken in then they haven't committed a crime.
And do you think every home-owner in the world is capable of making that decision? What if the person in the garden is just looking for their dog? They look over at the house and get their brains blown out because their dog wandered off.


Does everyone have their own personal police or are they just superhuman? It only takes a minute to run in and grab something and kill you and run out. Nobody would ever know. If you call the police, they won't be there even 2 or 3 minutes, much less one minute, the time it takes to break in, take your stuff, kill you, and leave. Sometimes when there's a problem that needs immediate fixing, you have to take the law into your own hands. It could be life or death.

We have a police force because we believe they are trained in law enforcement, and aren't likely to go off half cocked and accidently shoot their own son in the dark because he looked suspicious and was carrying a toy pistol.

I don't deny people should be allowed to defend their home, but they should not be allowed to go round killing people just because that person had the misfortune to lose their dog in the wrong front lawn.

It is not a tool designed just to kill. Just like an axe is used for cutting wood, a gun can be used to shoot targets(personal experience). Shooters are the safest people to be around. You don't see a mentally unstable(retarded..gotta be politically correct..) person running into a crowd where everyone has a shotgun and start shooting the place up. If they did, they would not last but 2 seconds and they would be cut down by two sensible people with shotguns. Other than that, your ignorance is showing if they're tools "just to kill".

They do have a profound impact, and lots of crime would be prevented if everyone had one. Nobody would attack anyone, because they know that if they do, they WILL be shot. Nobody starts trouble because of the fear of death. It doesn't matter how tight you make the laws on guns, you will never stop a criminal from obtaining anything he wants. The definition of a criminal is someone that doesn't follow the laws. What makes you think he'll follow this one? (BTW, if you look at real life statistics, you see that crime in England and Australia has jumped by extreme amounts after banning guns. You can guess why..Criminals had no fear of deadly retaliation when they attacked, making innocent people targets. Oddly, most of the weapons used in the crimes are ILLEGAL GUNS)

Maybe you should crack down on the criminals a little harder than restrict the public's ownership of guns. Your laws won't do anything to impede the criminal's will. You need to go deeper than that.

You are assuming everyone who is allowed to buy and own a gun is actually a) a good shot and b) responsible. But there have been reports my government has seen (not in my nation but in others) of kids shooting their teachers because the teacher failed them, and kids shooting their parents, or themselves, because they found the gun and were playing with it.

And I am not worried about mentally "retarded" people having guns - I am worried about the mentally disturbed. Those who have a gun, but know to hide in a bell-tower with a high-powered rifle and start picking people off one at a time.

And most people who have a gun are not criminals because they own the gun legally, until they use it to commit a crime. Then they are criminals. So how would cracking down on criminals help?

That much should be obvious ... you use your teleporting dog to take you out! :p

Why didn't I think of that?


Or you take off your belt and get the keys sitting across the room by flinging your belt towards the keys. This usually takes 5-10 minutes and a commerial break, but it works.

No self respecting muggle need ever use a gun.


(smirk)



Well, Frisbeeteria called me arrogant for ignoring the weapons needs of deep space creatures ... I'm sure he would come in here and call you arrogant now for hurting the feeling (notice I used the singluar sense of the word) for suggesting that robots (made of metal and of which there are plenty of robot nations in Nation States) would not mind having their paint jobs scuffed up by bullets, especially those armor piercing kinds that are "designed for target practice and never to kill people".


(OOC) I think Robin Williams said that hunters are legally allowed to own armor-piercing bullets. Because it turns out a lot of moose now wear body-armor in the wild! (Back in Character)



Try:

Gambling,
Drugs,
Sexual Preference,
Prostitution,
Suicide,
Abortion, and ... *drumroll*
Religion

This subjects are regulated in tons of UN proposals. Thankfully most of them stand less a chance of reaching the UN floor than the Zombie Rights acts from this past summer.


Sorry - I meant no one trys to regulate other personal weapons - knives, axes etc.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

BY GARY L. SMITH

OF THE JOURNAL STAR

TOLUCA - A Toluca homeowner shot and killed a shouting, swearing intruder who broke into the family home early Tuesday after heaving a piece of backyard playground equipment through a window, authorities said.

-----

See the original story at www.pjstar.com

-----

Need I add any more?

So. What. I think we should actually be giving out more guns. so that national defence wont just be in the governments hands. The more guns people have, the more people will die. The more people that die, the less sensitive people are to everything, what does this mean? America grows up. Killing is Necesary for the race to survive.

So. What. I think we should actually be giving out more guns. so that national defence wont just be in the governments hands. The more guns people have, the more people will die. The more people that die, the less sensitive people are to everything, what does this mean? America grows up. Killing is Necesary for the race to survive.

You do realise the logical (if overblown) extention to your arguement is that the best way for a race to survive is for everyone in it to be killed?

National defence is in the hands of the military because they are trained to use guns. They are not just handed one and told to go kill some bad guys.

You put a gun in the hands of the average person on the street and chaos will ensue.

It's a pity this resolution is so obviously an attempt to over-ride national government and soverignty, because I am leaning more and more towards supporting it every time someone writes down why they oppose it.

This is based on the dangerous assumption that the majority of humanity is sensible. Take a minute of objectively looking at the world, the state it is now in, the things that happen. Are more than, say, 20% of the world's population sensible?

Far more than 20% of the world is sensible. Past that, if you want more sensible, teach kids about guns and how to use one correctly when they're little.

In your example: A mentally unstable person would do that, yes. If they don't have the judgement to avoid running amok, they don't have the common sense to avoid attacking a heavily armed group of people.

Great, so when they do do it, they don't start shooting at a group of unarmed people. When you take the guns away, they're free to attack whoever they want. Nobody will be able to do anything back, so it's shoot at will.

Result: One person is killed who might have been better off in a mental institution or drug rehabilitation. I don't suppose you want to shoot all the mentally disadvantaged?

If they don't know it's wrong to kill people, then yes, the world would be better off without them, or lock them up away from people they could hurt. Mental institutions and drug rehabs are just feel good ways to fix problems. It doesn't work.

Another result: Several persons may be killed by the amok runner before the "sensible" shooters can react (if carrying a gun is normal, you won't shoot someone until he starts shooting). Guns in everyone's hands don't stabilize a conflict, they destablize it.

Ok, you are making my point for me. Several people may be killed before someone can kill the shooter, but he will be stopped before the killer get's too far. Take the defense away, the killer can kill as many people as he wants. The people have no way to fight back. Guns don't destablize conflict. They prevent it. Nobody will commit a crime when certain death is the result.

Another result: Several more people may be killed by the "sensible" people missing - it's not easy to fire inside a crowd, especially if you're defending yourself and have to act quickly.

That's always a possibility, but when you shoot at someone 10 feet away(the one's first to respond), it's hard to miss. You take the chance of letting him kill possibly hundreds of people in a crowded place, or the people can shoot and miss let's say 10 times. But, by shooting him before he can empty all his clips, you just saved how many lives? There is also something about "sensible" that says don't shoot towards other people. In a case like this, you may have to disregard that, but you still pay attention.

YET another result: At the sound of gunshots, it's very hard to figure out who's shooting to attack and who's shooting to defend the group (civilians and maniacs don't have uniforms you know). A small panic will break out, and several people may shoot the "sensible" people rather than the amok runner. In turn, someone else may mistakenly shoot *them*. Once that happens, all the sensible people are sensibly shooting at each other to defend the general populace against the amok runner, who is long shot and already covered by the other dead.

It's not that hard for someone right next to the gunshots to look around and see a nut swinging a gun around shooting at anything. Someone 200 feet away in a crowd that hears gunshots isn't going to start lobbing bullets over towards the noise. It shouldn't be that hard to see one guy shooting at anyone he sees, and other people shooting at him. It seems pretty obvious. That's what sensible is. You don't just start shooting. You're calling the sensible people unsensible. Panic may break out; someone's trying to kill you. But you don't just pull your gun out and start shooting.

End tally: 23 dead in general shootout.

And 32 dead in Australia after someone that obtained an illegal automatic weapon and shot up everyone in a town square, right after they ban private guns. If just one sensible person had a gun, he wouldn't have gotten away with 32, and left everyone in a mass panic. This shows police aren't always there to serve your every need.

Alternative: People who want to buy a gun must have their criminal record examined for past crimes of violence (examining a criminal record cannot count as a breach of privacy - if you can't vote as a felon, why should you get a gun?), their medical record examined for mental instabilities (a doctor could do that without disclosing the actual content, just giving an official opinion of the person's mental state), and must perform a test to verify their responsibility and competence with handling firearms. Result: The maniac doesn't *have* a gun. Instead he goes to clobber up the people with his fist, or maybe with a knife. He is quickly taken down by two "sensible" people with firearms, who shoot him in the leg or the feet and thus incapacitate him without killing him.[QUOTE=Aeruillin]

Most of that is done already, is it not? Medical records would be great to be examined. Felons should not have guns. Competence tests, yes, if it's not done already. The maniac can't buy a gun LEGALLY if you enforce this. He can still get a better, automatic weapon for less money through the black market. And nobody checks his records for anything. In other words, your tests and checks only affect the people that are willing to go through them. If they're willing to go through all that trouble, odds are that they won't screw it all up the first day by shooting someone with a 9 round pistol.

[QUOTE=Aeruillin]End tally: None dead, 2-3 injured by knife wounds, one injured by shots.

Or you could have some dead from knife wounds, and one dead for trying to murder someone. With the murderer dead, he can't do it again when he gets out of prison(which they do every time they get out of jail).

If the person who was breaking in to the house was caught by the police, would they be executed for their crime?

#1, the chances police would be around to see them breaking into the house, and the chances that a robber would do it in front of a police officer are very, very low. You seem to want to be easy on these criminals. They have no sense of right and wrong, only doing what they want. If you continue to let them slide, they will just get braver. If they knew there was a chance of them being killed, they might think twice. Yes, if he was caught 2 times, he should be executed. If the police are somehow ironically there when he's breaking in, and they can get him to stop, get your stuff back, and see that nothing was hurt, then just take him away and put him in jail. The problem is you put him in jail for a month and he gets out and does it again. After twice, it should be sufficient to show that he doesn't care what happens to other people's property or life. Show the rest of the maybe-criminals it won't be tolerated. Draw the line so the crime stops.

Do you excute muggers? Do you execute rapists?

If the muggers don't stop doing it, then yes. If you put them in jail once and they continue when they get out of jail, they are a problem to society. They don't help it at all, they just waste tax $$$. Problems need to be solved. Jail or rehab stuff won't help them, they only know how to mug people. Do you know what it's like to be raped? I don't but I do have two girl friends that have been, more than once, and it ruins them for life. It is never forgotten. It is not something they should experience. Yes, rapists should be killed, in a painful fashion.

And what if the person doesn't jump on them, but just looks like they are acting suspicious? Can you shoot them then in a pre-emptive manner?

If they are acting suspicious, then no, it wouldn't be OK. If they act in a way you know they are preparing to do something, then you should be able to confront them. If they do something that is threatening to you, you should be able to do something about it. Not neccessarily shoot them until you know they have bad intentions.

No it's not!! If they haven't broken in then they haven't committed a crime.
And do you think every home-owner in the world is capable of making that decision? What if the person in the garden is just looking for their dog? They look over at the house and get their brains blown out because their dog wandered off.

You're taking what I'm saying way, way out of context. To the point it almost sounds like it's on purpose. True, if they haven't broken in they haven't committed a crime. On another side, would you rather wait until they are in the same room as you carrying a baseball bat or a knife and wearing a mask? But if they are down below cutting a hole in your window or breaking it with a brick, then they are breaking into your house. If someone is looking for their dog, they can't be tramping around on your lawn. They can go to your door and ask you to keep an eye out for their dog, and move on. They don't need to be wandering around your yard. Looking at your house doesn't mean they get their brains blown out, but they shouldn't be in your yard next to your house looking at it. No not every current owner is. This is another thing I'm talking about. Educate these people earlier in their life as to what is going on. Educate them now. Teach them about guns and how to use them safely. Teach them common sense. We need to bring responsibility back into play. No more excuses, no more blame. When you do something(or don't), you are responsible.

We have a police force because we believe they are trained in law enforcement, and aren't likely to go off half cocked and accidently shoot their own son in the dark because he looked suspicious and was carrying a toy pistol.

I don't think any RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE person would do that. Of course you might if you don't know what the hell you're doing. That's why you learn it and teach your kids. Parents need to be doing more to educate their kids about real life scenarios and problems. These parents should have been taught what to do in that scenario and how to use a gun the right way in the first place, and teaching their kids, too. BTW, what does a toy gun have to do with anything? If someone's pointing a gun at you, and you don't know if it's real or not, are you going to wait until he shows you it's real or fake by putting a bullet in you?

I don't deny people should be allowed to defend their home, but they should not be allowed to go round killing people just because that person had the misfortune to lose their dog in the wrong front lawn.

As said above, that person has no business wandering around on your yard acting like he's looking for something. If he has a problem, he can ask the house owner.

You are assuming everyone who is allowed to buy and own a gun is actually a) a good shot and b) responsible. But there have been reports my government has seen (not in my nation but in others) of kids shooting their teachers because the teacher failed them, and kids shooting their parents, or themselves, because they found the gun and were playing with it.
And I am not worried about mentally "retarded" people having guns - I am worried about the mentally disturbed. Those who have a gun, but know to hide in a bell-tower with a high-powered rifle and start picking people off one at a time.
And most people who have a gun are not criminals because they own the gun legally, until they use it to commit a crime. Then they are criminals. So how would cracking down on criminals help?

You're right, not everyone is a good shot. That's why you should practice, train, etc. Not everyone is responsible? Why aren't they? Doesn't that set off an alarm in your nation that something isn't going right if they can't be responsible? You're right, kids do do stuff like that, because they had lousy parents. Their parents didn't teach them what's right and what's wrong in life. The schools don't help with that either. I'm sure some of our more socialist and communist nation's median doesn't do anything about it. They shoot people with it when they are just playing around because they don't know what it is and what it's capable of when they play with it. It seems simple that just teaching these kids about this stuff would help the problem immensely. You don't hide guns from kids. It only makes them curious. You show it to them, you teach them about it, and you teach them right and wrong. You let them shoot it at the range or at targets. You let them see what it's capable of. That would stop a lot of the "accidents".

I know your concern, but your laws won't prevent an unstable person from obtaining an illegal automatic weapon and unloading it in the middle of town.

That's true for the minority of people. Most people have enough responsibility, sense and knowledge to do what's right. Nobody will go through the hassle of legally obtaining a gun, just to go on a rampage and lose his rights to it.

Edit: Sorry for so many posts in a row. Need to reply to everyone though.
[QUOTE=Mikitivity]But knock yourself out ... post those real world links. I *honestly* would be eager to read them, and I think taking the debate away from just conjecture to actual evidence on both sides would be a good thing.[QUOTE]

You might think this is a "biased" towards gun ownership side, but it shows what the gun control people didn't. http://www.awbansunset.com/

http://www.guncite.com/ -bunch of statistics and stories there.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm -seems pretty neutral..
"Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%."
"In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year."
" As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest."

Don't forget to go to http://www.justfacts.com/jlott.htm on that page to view what happened during Lott's study...

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html - Australia's gun control

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/control.html -gun control abroad.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/ -murder rate comparison.

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/James/More%20on%20Gun%20Control%20From%20Australia.htm -Australian police officer

http://www.leaa.org/index.html -Cop organization on gun control

Edit: Sorry for so many posts in a row. Need to reply to everyone though.

You might think this is a "biased" towards gun ownership side, but it shows what the gun control people didn't. http://www.awbansunset.com/

http://www.guncite.com/ -bunch of statistics and stories there.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm -seems pretty neutral..
"Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%."

Though I'm guilty of this to, a few of us that post frequently are *not* going to be offended or think less of you if you don't reply to everyone. Honest.

We've been there and are reading your other replies, so don't sweat combining things.

As for the situation of Washington D.C. ... I'm a bit less certain of that, but I'll check out that site. I've never really felt safe in Washington D.C., but the problem with just pumping out raw satistics like that is that often the comparisions are apples and oranges and fail to consider other factors as well.

Basically, I listen to law enforcement agencies ... some of which advocate gun control, others that don't. If you really want to appeal to those of us whom feel that the idea has merit, I think finding sources from actually endorsed government agencies adds credibility to your cause.

And 32 dead in Australia after someone that obtained an illegal automatic weapon and shot up everyone in a town square, right after they ban private guns. If just one sensible person had a gun, he wouldn't have gotten away with 32, and left everyone in a mass panic. This shows police aren't always there to serve your every need.
I assume you are referring to the Port Arthur massacre, as I did. If so, you obviously missed the entire point of my post, and have your facts mixed up.

Martin Bryant was not using an illegal firearm when he shot and killed 32 people. He was using an entirely legal weapon. It was after the massacre that automatic weapons were banned, and the buyback scheme was put in place.

You say that if people had guns, then Martin Bryant would have been killed before killing 32 people. My point is that if the weapon was not available, he would not have killed anyone, because he would not have the means to do so.

Much like TilEnca, I am leaning more and more towards support of this proposal as time goes by.

Just recently a bill to ban all hand held firearms apart from the police and armed forces was placed before the Telidian parliament and approved with an overwhelming majority. Unfortunately the text of the current proposal does allow for private citizens to carry firearms and thus we would have to repeal our own legislation to be compliant. This will be no easy feat since the subject has enormous public support.

May I therefore request the honourable member from Palisraelestine consider including a clause that would not force nations such as us to repeal strict legislation, which is already in place?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

#1, the chances police would be around to see them breaking into the house, and the chances that a robber would do it in front of a police officer are very, very low.


I didn't make it clear - I meant what if they break in, steal your tv, don't kill you, escape and then two weeks later are arrested and convicted for the crime. Should they be executed then?


If they are acting suspicious, then no, it wouldn't be OK. If they act in a way you know they are preparing to do something, then you should be able to confront them. If they do something that is threatening to you, you should be able to do something about it. Not neccessarily shoot them until you know they have bad intentions.


But the display that they have bad intentions might be them shooting you through the head.

And can you EVER be sure their intentions are bad? They might push you over, hurting you, but only because a huge tree trunk was about to smack in to your head. So if they come to push you over, would you shoot them? Even though they saved your life?


Educate these people earlier in their life as to what is going on. Educate them now. Teach them about guns and how to use them safely. Teach them common sense.



I don't think any RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE person would do that. Of course you might if you don't know what the hell you're doing. That's why you learn it and teach your kids.


If I had kids I would teach them that life is important, and worth protecting. Not that they have the right to kill someone because they think they are being threatened.


As said above, that person has no business wandering around on your yard acting like he's looking for something. If he has a problem, he can ask the house owner.

Not to try to take you out of context, but you think he should get shot cause he forgot to ask for permission?

You're right, not everyone is a good shot. That's why you should practice, train, etc. Not everyone is responsible? Why aren't they? Doesn't that set off an alarm in your nation that something isn't going right if they can't be responsible?


No. It's "human" nature. I would hope everyone who learns to drive would be responsible, but clearly that isn't the case otherwise there would not be so many convcitions for speeding, drink driving and dangerous driving.
I would trust everyone to check their attachments before they open an e-mail, but clearly the virus attacks that sweep the nations are an indication they don't.
I would trust everyone who is old enough to drink to be sensible when they are drinking, but that's clearly not the case.

So what do I do? Turn TilEnca in to a total dictatorship just so I can be sure everyone is not wandering naked in the middle of the road? No - I accept that this is not a perfect world and short of genetically engineering a race of super-beings there is no way to obtain perfection in a person.

And if someone will happily drive 80 in a school zone, then you can see why I would not want to give them a gun.



You're right, kids do do stuff like that, because they had lousy parents. Their parents didn't teach them what's right and what's wrong in life.


Or - you know - their parents are working three jobs to pay the rent and don't have time to look after the child properly.
And if there wasn't a gun in the house then the kid wouldn't do it, would they?


You don't hide guns from kids.


You just don't keep them in the house. My parents never kept a gun in the house and not once was I curious about what they did.


I know your concern, but your laws won't prevent an unstable person from obtaining an illegal automatic weapon and unloading it in the middle of town.


It's not the unstable person obtaining a gun I am worried about. It's the stable person who suddenly snaps and has one to hand because no one thought to ban them.
Seriously - if you got fired, and decided you wanted to go on a rampage, do you not accept it would be a lot harder to do if you didn't have a gun to hand? If you had to go out and buy one?



That's true for the minority of people. Most people have enough responsibility, sense and knowledge to do what's right. Nobody will go through the hassle of legally obtaining a gun, just to go on a rampage and lose his rights to it.

This is the same "most amount of people" who speed and drink to excess is it?

And you are assuming that "deranged" people are not capable of bursts of sanity. I can easily see someone sitting down and thinking "I want to kill all my work mates" and planning it out in detail - getting the gun (legally), going to work (legally), then just suddenly opening up and killing the lot of them. And nothing would stop him doing it.

Great, so when they do do it, they don't start shooting at a group of unarmed people. When you take the guns away, they're free to attack whoever they want. Nobody will be able to do anything back, so it's shoot at will.

Assuming that the maniac actually HAS A GUN, which I've been trying to make clear he hasn't! Look, let's assume that if you are lugging around a gun, and there is no Weapons Restriction in place, you get where you're going and shoot all these people. If there's a Control, the police are going to see you carrying a gun, and are going to demand a weapon's license, which you don't have if you got it illegally. So, yes, the weapons ban DOES keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, and out of the hands of civic-minded but irresponsible people.


Far more than 20% of the world is sensible.

Not in cities where only suicidal or stupid people would stay out after dark, and not in countries where a president--- but let's leave that.


If they don't know it's wrong to kill people, then yes, the world would be better off without them, or lock them up away from people they could hurt. Mental institutions and drug rehabs are just feel good ways to fix problems. It doesn't work.

Can you please offer reliable, scientific statistics that show a below, say, 15% success rate? For what you're saying, the evidence should have to show 0%, but I'm feeling generous.


Ok, you are making my point for me. Several people may be killed before someone can kill the shooter, but he will be stopped before the killer get's too far. Take the defense away, the killer can kill as many people as he wants. The people have no way to fight back. Guns don't destablize conflict. They prevent it. Nobody will commit a crime when certain death is the result.

See above. Weapons Ban means Weapons Ban for the Irresponsible. Not Weapons Ban for all BUT the Irresponsible.


It's not that hard for someone right next to the gunshots to look around and see a nut swinging a gun around shooting at anything. Someone 200 feet away in a crowd that hears gunshots isn't going to start lobbing bullets over towards the noise. It shouldn't be that hard to see one guy shooting at anyone he sees, and other people shooting at him. It seems pretty obvious. That's what sensible is. You don't just start shooting. You're calling the sensible people unsensible. Panic may break out; someone's trying to kill you. But you don't just pull your gun out and start shooting.

Neither of us have witnessed a mass panic or a massacre. But I have read articles and eyewitnesses' descriptions; and they are quite unanimous on the point that when you get a lot of people fearing for their own life at once, they get collectively irrational. You are applying rational thought to people in a panic. Have you seen stampedes, where people step over others to get out of a large building? I assure you, the persons who have killed those that are afterwards found crushed to death, they are quite normal, rational people. They might have said just before they would never lose their head. Same for gun massacres.

Oh, and to Mmpai:


Killing is Necesary for the race to survive.

The future of humanity is bright. Get out your clubs and help along evolution, people! Return to your roots! :)

arrr, any lubber who goes messin about lookin too closely at my background will ha' his snoopy nose shortened by my still-legal-and-carried-in-plain-view cutless!

arrrr.....

While the Republic herself will not be approving or supporting this proposal. We would like to thank the author for all the available loopholes within the resolution for allowing this resolution to have no effective impact on our nation. Given that we are a conscription nation, in which all of age persons are part of the militia, and that firearms of all sorts are needed in the hands of our citizenry... Should this resolution pass, the Republic will do little else but restrict gunownership to those persons who are members of the militia, and provide a list of our entire citizen population (who are in fact the militia).

(OOC and maybe off topic but sort of relevent)

Having a gun doesn't make you safer - it either won't protected you at all


Obviously, there's one story that going dominating news around the world for the next few days, and it would be easy to think that President Bartlet, Joshua Lyman, and Stephanie Abbott were the only victims of a gun crime last night. They weren't. Mark Davis and Sheila Evans of Philadelphia were killed by a gun last night. He was a Biology Teacher and she was a Nursing student. Tina Bishop and Linda Larkin were killed with a gun last night. They were 12. There were 36 homicides last night. 480 sexual assaults, 3,411 robberies, 3,685 aggravated assaults, all at gunpoint. And if anyone thinks those crimes could have been prevented if the victims themselves had been carrying guns, I'd only remind you that the President of the United States himself was shot last night while surrounded by the best trained armed guards in the history of the world.


or make you more likely to hurt someone else.


Fifteen minutes into the service, Daryl Bechtell, B-E-C-H-T-E-L-L, walked into the sanctuary. Reports indicate he was looking for his estranged wife. He fired off a round -- that was from the .38 -- missing his wife and hitting Harold Winter in the left shoulder. Mr. Winter is 65 and currently undergoing surgery at Abilene Regional Medical Center. Mr. Bechtell fired off anywhere between two and four more rounds at that point -- reports differ -- as the crowd began to scatter. That's when Ron Cahrl pulled a nine millimeter Glock from under his suit coat and fired off three rounds in the direction of Mr. Bechtell. It's unclear which of those rounds struck Melissa Markey. She's be nine years old tomorrow.


(I realise both of these are fictional situations, but I would defy anyone to tell me they could not happen in real life)

I don't accept that everyone who owns a gun will be well trained in its use. I don't accept that everyone will be capable of using it to defend themselves without hurting innocent people. I don't accept that the world is more safe if everyone has a gun than if most people don't. And I don't accept that you have the right to kill someone who is unarmed just because they break in to your house.

If someone is coming at you with an AK-47 and yelling "I'm going to kill you" then maybe I can see the justification. But if a 16 year old boy, with no guns, knives or axes, breaks in to a house then what possible justification is there for shooting him dead?

Anyway - I will go back in to character now.

(Back in character)

I am not going to support this resolution, cause it is a national issue. But don't think for one minute I am on the side of the gun lobby - if it was down to me all guns in all nations would be banned. But it's not, so they won't.

When a person enters your home without your consent or knowledge and places you in a reasonable apprehension that a harmful, mortal, or offensive touching may occur you are justified in using force against that threat.

Mortal force, if you believe your life, and that of your family is in danger. Now the question becomes, if your family is accounted for, and an unknown individual has entered your home without your permission, is it reasonable to assume that your life is endangered.

The Empire says yes. If you say no, that is fine. Though Human Nature and Natural selection, AP believes, are on our side with this one.

Notice, AP is not talking about tresspassing onto your property, but entering your home, when occupied, without your consent or knowledge.

"Not in cities where only suicidal or stupid people would stay out after dark, and not in countries where a president--- but let's leave that."-Aeruillin

No, by all means, continue. Then we will look at the historical track record of European Countries preventing the outbreak of global war. Then, we will follow it up with an analysis of the role that record has played in America abandoning its once nationalistic approach to global affairs and replacing it with intervention.

The results of such an analysis would be very interesting-don't you think?

abandoning its once nationalistic approach to global affairs and replacing it with intervention.

abandoning its once prideful approach to global affairs and replacing it with arrogance.

Every single nation that the US has had to "intervene" in for the last 50 years, they had formerly helped strengthen. They sold weapons to Iraq. They funded the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden. They supported civil war movements in some places, calling them "freedom fighters", and crushed rebels elsewhere, naming them "hostile to the legitimate government". Every single intervention since WW2 has not been an intervention to maintain peace, but to maintain America's interest. Name a single counter-example.

Okay,

Korea, Kossovo, Sudan, Somalia, to name a few

Any activity involving the UN and NATO.

Remember Ronald Reagan and the wall that once subdivided part of your country?

I agree that not every act is altruistic, but what conflict, if any is not sparked by National Interest. This goes to the root of my statement, if the US did not recognize that it has an interest in the rest of the world, the world would be a very different place. Not for the better I might add.

Though I'm guilty of this to, a few of us that post frequently are *not* going to be offended or think less of you if you don't reply to everyone. Honest.

Sorry, I just can't let something slip through unopposed.

fail to consider other factors as well.

One of those sources does cite an independant study, taking gov,t stats from thousands of counties, and takes into account the social problems, law changes, etc.

government agencies adds credibility to your cause.

Right, will get that tomorrow. It does help reading through all the info. A lot of them are gov,t stats, and the first one at least, explains some of the half-truths that people are being told about guns(assault weapons at least).

You say that if people had guns, then Martin Bryant would have been killed before killing 32 people. My point is that if the weapon was not available, he would not have killed anyone, because he would not have the means to do so.

I'm not sure which shooting I was talking about, but I lost the bookmark to the site I read it on...Outdated sites. My point is: if one person would have had a concealed weapon that day, note: a law abiding citizen, he may not have gotten as far as he did. At the same time, how would these laws prevent Bryant from obtaining a gun through the black market? Cheaply made AK-47s made in the middle east sell cheap on the black market. He could have bought it without anyone knowing, and still done the same thing. Only this time, any chance of someone with a concealed weapon is out. When you outlaw something, only the outlaws will have it. This is no exception.

Assuming that the maniac actually HAS A GUN, which I've been trying to make clear he hasn't! Look, let's assume that if you are lugging around a gun, and there is no Weapons Restriction in place, you get where you're going and shoot all these people. If there's a Control, the police are going to see you carrying a gun, and are going to demand a weapon's license, which you don't have if you got it illegally. So, yes, the weapons ban DOES keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, and out of the hands of civic-minded but irresponsible people.

Hmm I didn't pick the first part up from your other posts. Who would be lugging around a gun illegally? Who would be so stupid as to illegally flaunt a gun around when cops are there? That's right, most criminals aren't that dumb. That's another thing I'm trying to say. Who would buy a gun legally, jump through all the hoops just to take it home, just to go shoot a place up with them being able to track you? The weapons ban would stop the ones that are caught, not the ones hidden in their pants or under their jackets.

Neither of us have witnessed a mass panic or a massacre. But I have read articles and eyewitnesses' descriptions; and they are quite unanimous on the point that when you get a lot of people fearing for their own life at once, they get collectively irrational. You are applying rational thought to people in a panic. Have you seen stampedes, where people step over others to get out of a large building? I assure you, the persons who have killed those that are afterwards found crushed to death, they are quite normal, rational people. They might have said just before they would never lose their head. Same for gun massacres.

You keep assuming criminals are stupid people. The same thing would happen with a knife. In a crowd, someone stabs someone, people freak, it spreads, people panic. Even though he may be controlled right away, the message is still sent that a nut is killing someone. You also keep assuming that criminals are going to follow your laws for background checks, etc, and even buy the gun legally, just so they can get busted right away.

it spreads, people panic. Even though he may be controlled right away, the message is still sent that a nut is killing someone.

With the difference that a gun can kill about ten times more people in the same time, and a hundred times as far away.

I'm not sure which shooting I was talking about, but I lost the bookmark to the site I read it on...Outdated sites. My point is: if one person would have had a concealed weapon that day, note: a law abiding citizen, he may not have gotten as far as he did. At the same time, how would these laws prevent Bryant from obtaining a gun through the black market? Cheaply made AK-47s made in the middle east sell cheap on the black market. He could have bought it without anyone knowing, and still done the same thing. Only this time, any chance of someone with a concealed weapon is out. When you outlaw something, only the outlaws will have it. This is no exception.
Let's just leave it there and say that we have conflicting opinions on this subject, and neither of us is likely to change their opinion because of this debate.

I must say, this does appear to be a quite sane debate in comparison to others I've seen on this board. Both sides are willing to spend time detailing their arguments. I just feel that I can't contribute anything more here.

Giving these guns to anybody is like giving a bomb to a 3 year old!!!

you dont know what the guy next door would do if he had an ak47!!!
its ridiculous!!!

Even not as a memebr of the UN i would like to tell the UN one thing...
f*ck off
In an inhospital and barren desert all sorts of killer giant shit comes out of it
My people demand guns to shoot the sh*it out of them i and give the weapons to em
RPGs, Semi Autos, chainguns, even small armor

So if UN inspectors come around my people doors those people will be reimbursed for the cost of ammo :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

The good of all is good for all