NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear United Nations member countries,

The Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa, acting on behalf of popular opinion in our region of Scandinavia, has submitted a new repeal resolution to the United Nations.

We propose that the resolution "Right to Self-Protection" is repealed. This is because we believe that due to its lacking of a definition of reasonable force it could create a revenge-based vigilante society. Borgoa is against this.

The full text of our repeal resolution is as follows:

The United Nations,

RECGONISES that the premise of resolution 94 "Right to Self-Protection" was well intended, however

OBSERVES that that the resolution provides no definition of reasonable force

IS CONCERNED that this resolution could allow the rise of vigilantism and a society and culture of retribution and revenge

DECLARES that it is against violence and encouragement of violence in all forms

DECLARES that is believes that crime prevention and control is best enacted by the legitimate national authorities working in a robust and fair legal framework and should not be left to the individual citizen

REPEALS resolution 94 "Right to Self-Protection" originally implemented on Thursday, 24 February 2005, with immeadiate effect.

We would appreciate the support of those nations who believe that the original resolution "Right to Self-Protection" is bad for society. We would also welcome any comments and suggestions.

For your information, the proposal is currently on page 17 of the proposals.

Borgoan UN delegate,
Foreign Ministry

i can see you have good intentions with this one, but i would suggest you actually submit a 'replacement' proposal first. while we aknowledge that we dont like violence, and we dont like guns, we believe that people are entitled to a certain level of self-defence. we are not about to become a police state, and it is impossable to stop every crime before it happens, so we believe in a certian degree of self-protection. we encourage martial arts here as self-defence, and make awareness that you can incapacitate an attacker without doing serious harm, whilst still giving you time to escape the situation. if we repeal this piece of legeslation, with nothing to replace it, then victims can be charged with various crimes, whilst they are only just trying to protect themselves

Dear United Nations member countries,

The Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa, acting on behalf of popular opinion in our region of Scandinavia, has submitted a new repeal resolution to the United Nations.

We propose that the resolution "Right to Self-Protection" is repealed. This is because we believe that due to its lacking of a definition of reasonable force it could create a revenge-based vigilante society. Borgoa is against this.

The full text of our repeal resolution is as follows:

[COLOR=Navy]The United Nations,

RECGONISES that the premise of resolution 94 "Right to Self-Protection" was well intended, however

OBSERVES that that the resolution provides no definition of reasonable force


Which is good, because it means each nation gets to decide what is reasonable within it's borders. On the grounds that what is reasonable in TilEnca might be considered over the top in GeminiLand and visa-versa.


IS CONCERNED that this resolution could allow the rise of vigilantism and a society and culture of retribution and revenge


How? If you don't act in what has been defined as a reasonable manner in your nation, you get put in jail, or even executed. That should at least indicate to people what they can and can't do within the bounds of the resolution.


DECLARES that it is against violence and encouragement of violence in all forms


That I can agree with.


DECLARES that is believes that crime prevention and control is best enacted by the legitimate national authorities working in a robust and fair legal framework and should not be left to the individual citizen


I can more or less agree with that, except that sometimes the national authorities are not on hand when they need to be. And that this resolution can work within a fair legal framework ensuring that the individual citizen does not go nuts or out of control.


We would appreciate the support of those nations who believe that the original resolution "Right to Self-Protection" is bad for society. We would also welcome any comments and suggestions.


In comparrison to other proposals of this type, this resolution is by far and away the most balanced and fair and sensible. So I would oppose any moves to repeal it and replace it with something else (and any moves to repeal it in general)

The Free Land of Kapellen agrees with Borgoa. The term 'reasonable force' is indeed ill-defined. We understand that all nations are free to decide what 'reasonable force' means. As a consequence, the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' is, in fact, meaningless. It is also harmless: the parliament of the Free Land of Kapellen has decided that, in the context of the second item of the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection', NO force at all can be considered as reasonable.
However, the Free Land of Kapellen does not want the UN to pass meaningless resolutions. The UN should pass resolutions that mean something and that can make a difference!
So, if the term 'reasonable force' in the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' has no meaning, the resolution itself is meaningless. If the term 'reasonable force' in the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' means something, the resolution is potentially dangerous.

The resolution this proposal wants to repeal enshrines a principle that is justifiable, and is recognised as such in all RL jurisdictions that I know of around the world. Scandinavians may know it as 'nødrett' and 'nødverge' (that is for you norwegians/swedes/danes - i know for a fact that this exists in at least one of the three but I won't say which for fear of giving away my nationality!). Ok, so that's the real life perspective.

'Reasonable force' is, as has rightly been pointed out, open to interpretation. It provides for an objective standard that judges and juries around the world can rely on when determining what is reasonable in the circumstances of a self-defence scenario. Is that not what we want judges and juries to do? Interpret the law and apply it to the facts of a case, so a just outcome can be reached? The flexibility of this resolution in the application of a good principle to diverse legal systems is what makes this resolution strong, and safe.

i can see you have good intentions with this one, but i would suggest you actually submit a 'replacement' proposal first.
A 'replacement' cannot be submitted to the UN until the previous resolution is repealed. Unless you meant that a draft should be submitted to the forum for our consideration ... ?? :confused:

i didnt exactly mean an amendmant propsal or one that states "proposal #x shall be voided", i meant one that goes beyond the current one. unless things have been changed, and it is now illegal to do so, but there are a few resolutions that have been approved that have gone beyond previous ones, and those subsequent ones have been repealed later on.

while you have good intentions, and the argument is strong, some nations will see the title and be against it from the outset.

DECLARES that it is against violence and encouragement of violence in all forms

That particular phrase will very nicely kill the proposal. Plenty of UN members are aggressive or even warlike.

That particular phrase will very nicely kill the proposal. Plenty of UN members are aggressive or even warlike.
i have to agree there in that this can be taken as your nation forcing its philosophy onto someone elses, such as the 'repeal definition of marrage' proposal

*ponders invading Borgoa with some nerf-weilding psychos*

*ponders invading Borgoa with some nerf-weilding psychos*
*A legion of sociopathic AP Reserve forces are at your disposal for this one*

The Free Land of Kapellen agrees with Borgoa. The term 'reasonable force' is indeed ill-defined. We understand that all nations are free to decide what 'reasonable force' means. As a consequence, the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' is, in fact, meaningless. It is also harmless: the parliament of the Free Land of Kapellen has decided that, in the context of the second item of the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection', NO force at all can be considered as reasonable.
However, the Free Land of Kapellen does not want the UN to pass meaningless resolutions. The UN should pass resolutions that mean something and that can make a difference!
So, if the term 'reasonable force' in the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' has no meaning, the resolution itself is meaningless. If the term 'reasonable force' in the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' means something, the resolution is potentially dangerous.

It is depressing to know that a father must watch his daughter be raped by intruders in his household or at another location as he waits for the authorities in your NS. Or face legal repercussions for defending his child.

Vastiva is proud to always have had this right as law.

"Carry Permits" for firearms also went far to removing muggings and the like.

It is depressing to know that a father must watch his daughter be raped by intruders in his household or at another location as he waits for the authorities in your NS. Or face legal repercussions for defending his child.
this is exactly the reason why it shouldnt be repealed

Alright, Pohjoisvalta is surprised by the amount of rednecks here in the U.N. For example, someone tries to steal your wallet and you shoot the thief. Is that acceptable?

Someone crashes into your car and you beat him up, just because he "harmed your property". Is that acceptable?

We understand that people want to protect themselves/ their property but it's up to each nation's court to decide which is wrong and which isn't. We do not need a UN resolution which may cause more violence. What we need is all governments to use their common sense.

So please, don't vote like these rednecks do. Thank you.

We understand that people want to protect themselves/ their property but it's up to each nation's court to decide which is wrong and which isn't.
Exactly!
That's what the current resolution is doing:
Leaving it up to the courts of the member nations to define what force is reasonable and what force is unreasonable.

In the two examples given, this resolution would effectively have defeated self-defence as justification for the violence, because it would not have been reasonable in the circumstances. That's what 'reasonable force' entails.

Also, given that the original resolution passed by a fairly significant majority I am not entirely sure that referring to them all as rednecks will swing many votes.

Alright, Pohjoisvalta is surprised by the amount of rednecks here in the U.N. For example, someone tries to steal your wallet and you shoot the thief. Is that acceptable?

Someone crashes into your car and you beat him up, just because he "harmed your property". Is that acceptable?

We understand that people want to protect themselves/ their property but it's up to each nation's court to decide which is wrong and which isn't. We do not need a UN resolution which may cause more violence. What we need is all governments to use their common sense.

So please, don't vote like these rednecks do. Thank you.

I invite you to come to Texas, Pohjoisvalta. We will welcome you with open arms.

The Free Land of Kapellen agrees with Borgoa. The term 'reasonable force' is indeed ill-defined. We understand that all nations are free to decide what 'reasonable force' means. As a consequence, the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' is, in fact, meaningless. It is also harmless: the parliament of the Free Land of Kapellen has decided that, in the context of the second item of the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection', NO force at all can be considered as reasonable.
However, the Free Land of Kapellen does not want the UN to pass meaningless resolutions. The UN should pass resolutions that mean something and that can make a difference!
So, if the term 'reasonable force' in the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' has no meaning, the resolution itself is meaningless. If the term 'reasonable force' in the resolution 'Right to Self-Protection' means something, the resolution is potentially dangerous.

The government of Kapellen makes a good point. Even if you are not against the Self Protection resolution on ethical and human rights grounds, it is a wasteful resolution in a bureaucratic sense anyway - and thus should be repealed for this reason alone.

Incidentally, as at 18.30 GMT / 19.30 CET / 13.30 New York time, the proposal is on page 9 of the proposals, should you wish to express your support.

UN delegate of Scandinavia
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa Foreign Ministry

What is the alternative to this? A resolution that details exactly what you can do in what situation and what the law can do in response?

However much you clarify it there will be a loophole or a gap or something. For example how are you going to write a self-defence proposal that includes the things you could face in TilEnca. We have wizards and witches - they can throw a fireball or magic missile at you as soon as you look at them. What would reasonable force be in that situation? And if you write that in to the resolution, you put it in for all nations - even those where there might not be wizards.

So isn't it better to leave it to the hands of those who live in the nation?

What is the alternative to this? A resolution that details exactly what you can do in what situation and what the law can do in response?

However much you clarify it there will be a loophole or a gap or something. For example how are you going to write a self-defence proposal that includes the things you could face in TilEnca. We have wizards and witches - they can throw a fireball or magic missile at you as soon as you look at them. What would reasonable force be in that situation? And if you write that in to the resolution, you put it in for all nations - even those where there might not be wizards.

So isn't it better to leave it to the hands of those who live in the nation?

Is this an argument for repeal or not? I read it as an argument for repealing this resolution, as if you want to leave these matters to the nation, I would imagine you are against having any UN resolution on the matter?

Is this an argument for repeal or not? I read it as an argument for repealing this resolution, as if you want to leave these matters to the nation, I would imagine you are against having any UN resolution on the matter?

Honestly? I am not sure. I am generally against repeals on principle, but in this case I really can't bring myself whether it is repealed or not.

And if the sole purpose for repealing it is to draft a replacement for it, then it is not worth the effort of repealing it at all.

That wasn't very coherent I guess.

If it is to be repealed because it's ill-advised, illegal, badly spelt or just plain sucky, then by all means repeal it. But if it is to be repealed because a replacement is to be drafted then don't bother, because I can't think of a single replacement that could be legal.

It is depressing to know that a father must watch his daughter be raped by intruders in his household or at another location as he waits for the authorities in your NS. Or face legal repercussions for defending his child.

Right, point taken. But I wasn't thinking of this. I was thinking of theft and protecting the legally obtained property of another person. How can anybody be sure that the property of another person is legally obtained?
And suppose I'm walking on the street when I see person A trying to knock down person B. Do I have a right to try to knock down person A? Maybe person B stole something from person A, so person A is, according to the right of self-protection, in his right trying to knock down person B... Or maybe person A was just trying to knock down person B because he saw that person B was trying to knock down some person C?

Alright, Pohjoisvalta is surprised by the amount of rednecks here in the U.N. For example, someone tries to steal your wallet and you shoot the thief. Is that acceptable?

Someone crashes into your car and you beat him up, just because he "harmed your property". Is that acceptable?

We understand that people want to protect themselves/ their property but it's up to each nation's court to decide which is wrong and which isn't. We do not need a UN resolution which may cause more violence. What we need is all governments to use their common sense.

So please, don't vote like these rednecks do. Thank you.
okay, to start of you DON'T have to be a redneck to oppose this repeal. i am normal, law abiding citizen, but i am happy that i know i can defend myself without legal repercussions. of course, i dont own a gun, and dont have the desire to own one, but i am happy that i can defend myself with reasonable force. i dont know about you, but i dont exactly want to be charged with assault when i am actually a victim. really, governments should use common sense when inacting this resolution, in setting the limit of reasonable force. just remember though, while you may base your argument to get some governments into line, in the time it would take to get a proposal written, approved and passed, many more deaths could occur because of people to s*** scared that they would get into trouble because nothing covers their right to self-defence

Alright, Pohjoisvalta is surprised by the amount of rednecks here in the U.N. For example, someone tries to steal your wallet and you shoot the thief. Is that acceptable?

Yes.


Someone crashes into your car and you beat him up, just because he "harmed your property". Is that acceptable?

No, unless this is an attempt of "murder by vehicle" or "assault with vehicle" in which case, yes.



We understand that people want to protect themselves/ their property but it's up to each nation's court to decide which is wrong and which isn't. We do not need a UN resolution which may cause more violence. What we need is all governments to use their common sense.

So please, don't vote like these rednecks do. Thank you.

Ah - but you fail to understand. The threat of violence - particularly legal violence - suppresses crime.


40 Reasons for gun control.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC?s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis? high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control are important indicators, but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just
statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear
of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense, give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman
Pete Shields, Guns Don?t Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a
computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration?s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the
states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th
Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren?t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn?t have handguns, because they aren?t "military weapons," but private citizens shouldn?t have "assault
rifles," because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940?s, 1950?s and 1960?s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA?s attempt to run a "don?t touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby?s attempt to run a "don?t touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers? advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can?t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but
the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other
parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do civilians who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it?s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don?t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says
the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don?t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that?s bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that?s good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on
their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands


Any questions?

in response: point 18: back in those days, punnisments were dished out in schools for misbehaving, where as these days the said punnishments are outlawed, and bullying has risen since because teachers cant keep students under control as they did in the 40's, 50's and 60's

point 7: they cant shoot what they cant see, and spraying stuff in sensitive eyes can be more effective than shooting someone in the arm or leg

The People's Dominion of Snoogit agree that resolution #94 is heinous, and promotes anarchy. As such we agree with the effort to repeal it. I have spoken with my regional delegate, and will do my best to persuade them to Approve of this proposal.

We acknowledge there are different viewpoints on how to handle crime in one's own country, At home, we have banned all sales of guns, and crime in our country is practically unknown. We have funded our police force to politely instruct our citizens on correct behavior, and have progessive social policies on social welfare, and education.

There are all sorts of manner to suppress crime. sometimes making your citzenry happy is all it takes as well.

in response: point 18: back in those days, punnisments were dished out in schools for misbehaving, where as these days the said punnishments are outlawed, and bullying has risen since because teachers cant keep students under control as they did in the 40's, 50's and 60's

Uhm, Duh. You remove personal responsibility in favor of liberalized "ooooh, johnny just came from a bad famiwy, we can't punish him for dat!", you end up with a nation of jerks.



point 7: they cant shoot what they cant see, and spraying stuff in sensitive eyes can be more effective than shooting someone in the arm or leg

You aim at their arms or legs? Are you truly stupid?

Then again, I'd love to see someone do much after being shot in the elbow or knee. Or any joint. A nice blown off foot does so much for the morale...

Here, because I LOVE saying "Toldja so!". (http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33909~2743079,00.html)


the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

Oh, you believe in government gun control? Aren't you cute. Here, have a cookie.


Now go away.

People can immunize themselves to mace and/or pepper spray - its not really that difficult. As yet, there has been no criminal immune to a 9mm round to the eye.

The People's Dominion of Snoogit agree that resolution #94 is heinous, and promotes anarchy. As such we agree with the effort to repeal it. I have spoken with my regional delegate, and will do my best to persuade them to Approve of this proposal.
How in the blue hell (Rock quote) does the right to protect yourself promote anarchy? i would really like to hear your explination on this

How in the blue hell (Rock quote) does the right to protect yourself promote anarchy? i would really like to hear your explination on this

It promotes violence between people, to us that is anarchy. Our definition of anarchy, and yours could very well be different.

It promotes violence between people, to us that is anarchy. Our definition of anarchy, and yours could very well be different.
whilst we agree that violence is not a good thing, we believe your definition of anarchy is very extreme. people should have the right to defend themselves against violence used on them, except for in the case of resisting arrest.

We wish Resistancia would read all in our postings, and realize how fundamentally silly in this world their stance truly is.

We wish Resistancia would read all in our postings, and realize how fundamentally silly in this world their stance truly is.
okay, first of all, are u sure you dont mean snoogit and not resistancia. secondly, i am thinking that a lot of these reports on gun banning fail to take into account of certain facts, notably the fact that they are not saying what area of society these attacks are actually comming from. a lot of these are coming from underprivelidged(sp?) areas. since the gun laws in australia have come into effect, so have tighter restrictions on Centrelink, or dole, payments. people are struggling to live these days, and i can say i have been both in the decent earning position and in the lower income positon, and it is hard to try and go to places to apply for work when you cant even travel. the unemployment figures are a lie. there are so many people that are looking for work who are classed as studying or on disability, and they get overlooked cause of that. not to meantion that a lot of these people who are on benefits and are young are following the american gang mentality. while i am in agreeance that gun control is a good thing, things need to be done in other areas too. and also, wouldnt shooting someone in the head, class you as a murderer? i mean, sure, they coulda done the same thing to you, but i belive that takinging someones life in self-defence is not reasonable force.

OBSERVES that that the resolution provides no definition of reasonable forceThat was one reason we felt comfortable supporting it.

IS CONCERNED that this resolution could allow the rise of vigilantism and a society and culture of retribution and revengeVigilantism is not in all cases inappropriate.

DECLARES that is believes that crime prevention and control is best enacted by the legitimate national authorities working in a robust and fair legal framework ...Glad we agree. That's exactly what this resolution insures.

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta have been too much oppressed by ill-considered NSUN mandates. We will not support your attempt to strip us of this protection.

okay, first of all, are u sure you dont mean snoogit and not resistancia.


You're both a bit lost, Snoogit a bit more.



secondly, i am thinking that a lot of these reports on gun banning fail to take into account of certain facts, notably the fact that they are not saying what area of society these attacks are actually comming from. a lot of these are coming from underprivelidged(sp?) areas. since the gun laws in australia have come into effect, so have tighter restrictions on Centrelink, or dole, payments.

If you'd read the article I referenced, you'd know that violent crime is up in countries which have banned guns. The "underprivledged" arguement is bupkiss and not relevant, save as where the powderkeg blows first.



people are struggling to live these days, and i can say i have been both in the decent earning position and in the lower income positon, and it is hard to try and go to places to apply for work when you cant even travel. the unemployment figures are a lie. there are so many people that are looking for work who are classed as studying or on disability, and they get overlooked cause of that. not to meantion that a lot of these people who are on benefits and are young are following the american gang mentality. while i am in agreeance that gun control is a good thing, things need to be done in other areas too. and also, wouldnt shooting someone in the head, class you as a murderer? i mean, sure, they coulda done the same thing to you, but i belive that takinging someones life in self-defence is not reasonable force.

We do not believe in gun control. If you reread what I posted, it proves every arguement for gun control to be the sham it is.

We do not believe someone shooting an intruder to death is a murderer - we believe in self-defense. If I have to shoot, I shoot to kill - this is not negotiable. You broke the social contract by attempting to rob me, you are a clear and present threat, and I shall deal with you as that threat.

Dead people don't shoot back.

You're both a bit lost, Snoogit a bit more.




If you'd read the article I referenced, you'd know that violent crime is up in countries which have banned guns. The "underprivledged" arguement is bupkiss and not relevant, save as where the powderkeg blows first.




We do not believe in gun control. If you reread what I posted, it proves every arguement for gun control to be the sham it is.

We do not believe someone shooting an intruder to death is a murderer - we believe in self-defense. If I have to shoot, I shoot to kill - this is not negotiable. You broke the social contract by attempting to rob me, you are a clear and present threat, and I shall deal with you as that threat.

Dead people don't shoot back.
the 'underprivledged argument is relevent, coz you need to look at the reason why they are commiting the crime in the first place. secondly, shooting to kill in self-defence makes you just as bad, if not worse than the person you are shooting. if that is the case, then why dont we just give thieves the death penalty

We DO give thieves the Death Penalty.

As to your belief that shooting back makes you as bad, Vastiva hereby declares war on you and is annexing your country by force - reminding you that any resistance makes you "just as bad". We will be extraditing all your populace to the frozen wastes of the North Pole, without protection of any kind.

There, your arguement is proven asinine by example.

We DO give thieves the Death Penalty.

As to your belief that shooting back makes you as bad, Vastiva hereby declares war on you and is annexing your country by force - reminding you that any resistance makes you "just as bad". We will be extraditing all your populace to the frozen wastes of the North Pole, without protection of any kind.

There, your arguement is proven asinine by example.
you must remember, and i know it is going to sound contradictory, but there is a MAJOR difference between stealling a hand bag and a nation invading. as i have stated, we are not against self-defence, i was mearly replying to your comments, which, when looking at it, we have strayed off the initial subject of this debate, in that should the resolution be repealed. and in a rarity, again, we both agree, and like that past proposal that we agreed on, this one is also doomed

We do agree then - people must have the right of self-defense.

*nods*

the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

Oh, you believe in government gun control? Aren't you cute. Here, have a cookie.


Now go away.

May be so for USA, but in European nations without this kind of extreme legislation, murder and crime rates are very significantly lower than those in USA. Try not to restrict your viewpoint to merely one real life nation.

Gee, how about reading the referenced article first?
Then you can pull your shoe out of your mouth.

Here, I'm lazy, so I'll post the relevant paragraph from this article (http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33909~2743079,00.html)


Gun ban' utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.


Now we give you leave to apologize for your oversight (you failed to read the article, as these were the opening paragraphs and you failed to research the topic) and the simple fact you are wrong. Your rate may be lower, but at the rate it is increasing it won't be for long.

Vastiva, you remind me of Rumsfield at Congressional Hearings.

Rep: I think this about the issue based on the defense report.
Rums: But the report does not say anything that supports that conclusion.
Rep: The report was about this topic.
Rums: Did you read it?
Rep: No.
Rums: Would you like another copy?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403813 <- there is already a thread on this subject. leave this one for the discussion on the UN proposal

Personally, and my views may be in the minority, I don't see why this is even a major discussion. For a nation to exist in the first place, it has to place some value on violence simply to maintain territorial integrity. If not, said nation becomes overrun by an aggressive neighbor. So why should my home be any different? If Krioval wishes to interpret the resolution whose repeal is being discussed here as guaranteeing people the right to kill "invaders" in their home, what's the problem? Don't rob a Kriovalian house then!

Personally, and my views may be in the minority, I don't see why this is even a major discussion. For a nation to exist in the first place, it has to place some value on violence simply to maintain territorial integrity. If not, said nation becomes overrun by an aggressive neighbor. So why should my home be any different? If Krioval wishes to interpret the resolution whose repeal is being discussed here as guaranteeing people the right to kill "invaders" in their home, what's the problem? Don't rob a Kriovalian house then!

*hands the representative from Krioval a cigar*

careful Krioval, Vastiva is know to hand out exploading cigars. our minister for small business hasnt been able to speak since, not that we mind.... ;)

May be so for USA, but in European nations without this kind of extreme legislation, murder and crime rates are very significantly lower than those in USA. Try not to restrict your viewpoint to merely one real life nation.


I'm sorry - what? I'm from Europe myself and I know of no country in Europe that DOES NOT have legislation enshrining the principle of self defence.

I presume you're Swedish so you will understand the following (in Norwegian):
http://www.caplex.net/web/artikkel/artdetalj.asp?art_id=9325622

Also, have a look at this for the UK position:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html#04

So rather than take a cheap shot at the US by generalising the 'European position' with reference to lower crime rates, take a look at the actual legislation in place in countries that have very low crime rates (ie Norway).

I was actually just drafting a repeal resolution, but lacked the endorsements - I'll paste the text here. If anyone wants to endorse me/ submit this/draw ideas from it, go ahead:

NOTING
1)the presence and prevalence of malicious individuals throughout society who would seek to benefit at the expense of others via extragovernmental and extralegal means,

2)the right of individuals to protect themselves

RECOGNIZING the threat that sed individuals pose to both "sovereign individuals and societies,"

HOWEVER NOTING
1) the role of governemtal institutions to legislate this behavior and to enforce such legislations,

2) that only governmental instutitions, and not "other persons" are qualified, equipt, and empowered by the masses to enforce such legislation,

3) the ambiguity of "reasonable force,"

4) the dangers inherant in vigilante style justice,

URGES that UN Resolution # 94 be struck null and void,

AND RECCOMENDS
1) that the UN draft a resolution in the spirit of resolution 94 that stresses governmental means of regulation yet still provides for the right of an individual to defend him or herself.
2) that the UN draft a resolution establishing a world fund to combat criminal activity, and that this fund (if it does not already exist) be entrusted to an elected counsel of delegates, empowered to regulate and administer funds to nations suffering from egregious criminal activities (for instance should the per capita murder rate pass 4% or the per capita property damage rate pass 7% - these numbers are projections). It should be stressed that
a) this is only a reccomendation
b) this organization will only be empowered to donate or lend funds and audit the usage of these funds. Sovereign nations shall most effectively use sed funds.
c) this delegation be regulated by vote from the UN.

Gee, how about reading the referenced article first?
Then you can pull your shoe out of your mouth.

Here, I'm lazy, so I'll post the relevant paragraph from this article (http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33909~2743079,00.html)



Now we give you leave to apologize for your oversight (you failed to read the article, as these were the opening paragraphs and you failed to research the topic) and the simple fact you are wrong. Your rate may be lower, but at the rate it is increasing it won't be for long.

If Great Britain represented the whole of Europe, I would apologise. But, seeing as it doesn't, your comments are just as irrelevant as the earlier USA-centric comments.

I'm sorry - what? I'm from Europe myself and I know of no country in Europe that DOES NOT have legislation enshrining the principle of self defence.

I presume you're Swedish so you will understand the following (in Norwegian):
http://www.caplex.net/web/artikkel/artdetalj.asp?art_id=9325622

Also, have a look at this for the UK position:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html#04

So rather than take a cheap shot at the US by generalising the 'European position' with reference to lower crime rates, take a look at the actual legislation in place in countries that have very low crime rates (ie Norway).
Of course, I agree we do. But if somebody stole your wallet and you then decided to shoot them dead, you would more than likely find yourself in prison for murder pretty rapidly - and quite rightly. This is what people are seriously suggesting the present resolution endorses. We do not believe self-defence as a principle is wrong, hence the opening lines of our repeal proposal. We do however believe that the way the present resolution is worded is an encitement to revenge, vigilantism, and at worse could be completeley misused by people wishing to be violent for violence sake.

Of course, I agree we do. But if somebody stole your wallet and you then decided to shoot them dead, you would more than likely find yourself in prison for murder pretty rapidly - and quite rightly.

Why? Depending on what was in the wallet (ie. a keycard to a high-security intelligence agency vault that contains a listing of all covert operatives), it might be quite appropriate to shoot to kill. Which is precisely why I left the resolution so vague.

This is what people are seriously suggesting the present resolution endorses.

They are wrong. The resolution does not endorse any action. It promotes a principle. If it were endorsing action it would read thusly:

"All persons should defend their person and property from any and all assaults."

What the proposal actually states is quite different from what, as you said, "people are seriously suggesting," it states.

We do not believe self-defence as a principle is wrong, hence the opening lines of our repeal proposal.

Good. :)

We do however believe that the way the present resolution is worded is an encitement to revenge, vigilantism, and at worse could be completeley misused by people wishing to be violent for violence sake.

Ah. The people who are stupid enough to take being "allowed" to do something as an "encouragement" to do that thing are what you're worried about. Hell, if they're that dumb, they're probably already committing crimes and causing your nation trouble.

Of course, I agree we do. But if somebody stole your wallet and you then decided to shoot them dead, you would more than likely find yourself in prison for murder pretty rapidly - and quite rightly. This is what people are seriously suggesting the present resolution endorses. We do not believe self-defence as a principle is wrong, hence the opening lines of our repeal proposal. We do however believe that the way the present resolution is worded is an encitement to revenge, vigilantism, and at worse could be completeley misused by people wishing to be violent for violence sake.


Good, at least we agree in principle. I won't deal with your hypothetical example further than say that whether you could shoot someone for stealing your wallet would need to be justified at the highest level to pass the reasonable force test. Of course it's possible to invent circumstances, but I don't think that's too useful here given that it is a judge or a jury that will assess what 'reasonable force' the circumstances merited, not us. The same would apply to people who are violent because it's fun (unfortunately they exist) - if the evidence can show that the motivation for the violence was 'fun' no sensible judge or jury would acquit that individual. That is why we have legal systems in the first place, to interpret and apply the laws we pass as legislators.

To say that this resolution encourages violence is akin to saying that freedom of speech encourages people to say untruthful and hurtful things to one another. Should we get rid of it because this happens? If 'freedom of speech' is taken too far we have libel, slander and harassment laws to mitigate that. The resolution you are trying to repeal gives us the freedom to defend what is important to us provided it is necessary in the circumstances and reasonable force is applied. If the freedom is taken too far, ie through excessive violence or maliciousness, I would hope we have enough faith in our courts to be able to deal with that. I certainly do.

AND RECCOMENDS
1) that the UN draft a resolution in the spirit of resolution 94 that stresses governmental means of regulation yet still provides for the right of an individual to defend him or herself.

Uh...Resolution 94 already does this. It leaves it up to individual governments to define what "resonable force" is.

2) that the UN draft a resolution establishing a world fund to combat criminal activity, and that this fund (if it does not already exist) be entrusted to an elected counsel of delegates, empowered to regulate and administer funds to nations suffering from egregious criminal activities (for instance should the per capita murder rate pass 4% or the per capita property damage rate pass 7% - these numbers are projections).

No. While Krioval may be dealing with an upsurge in criminal activity (mainly juvenile), we are dealing with the problem. The last thing we need is some international agency getting in the way of our solving our own problems.

a) this is only a reccomendation

So a bad program is then made toothless? How is this any better than what we already have?

b) this organization will only be empowered to donate or lend funds and audit the usage of these funds. Sovereign nations shall most effectively use sed funds.

Self-contradictory. If the funds are "audited", it means that sovereign nations need to provide a strict accounting for them, which may compromise their ability to "most effectively use" the funds. And I see so many possibilities for corruption.

c) this delegation be regulated by vote from the UN.

Like the first incarnation of the Pretenama Panel, this is open to so much abuse it's pretty sad. Certainly, I see no reason to endorse a repeal of Res. 94 if something like this would be the replacement.

To say that this resolution encourages violence is akin to saying that freedom of speech encourages people to say untruthful and hurtful things to one another. Should we get rid of it because this happens? If 'freedom of speech' is taken too far we have libel, slander and harassment laws to mitigate that. The resolution you are trying to repeal gives us the freedom to defend what is important to us provided it is necessary in the circumstances and reasonable force is applied. If the freedom is taken too far, ie through excessive violence or maliciousness, I would hope we have enough faith in our courts to be able to deal with that. I certainly do.
Maybe you are right, we didn't arrticulate this so well.

Perhaps it will not actively insight so many people to go outside and be violent. However, it can allow those who are violent to hide behind this resolution and misuse it as their defence.

Maybe you are right, we didn't arrticulate this so well.

Perhaps it will not actively insight so many people to go outside and be violent. However, it can allow those who are violent to hide behind this resolution and misuse it as their defence.

All resolutions can be abused.

Vastiva, you remind me of Rumsfield at Congressional Hearings.

Rep: I think this about the issue based on the defense report.
Rums: But the report does not say anything that supports that conclusion.
Rep: The report was about this topic.
Rums: Did you read it?
Rep: No.
Rums: Would you like another copy?


OOC: All day, I've been trying to figure out if this was a compliment or not...

Of course, I agree we do. But if somebody stole your wallet and you then decided to shoot them dead, you would more than likely find yourself in prison for murder pretty rapidly - and quite rightly.

OOC: Not in this State. Might even get a medal. You'd be amazed how little of that sort of crime exists as a result.



This is what people are seriously suggesting the present resolution endorses. We do not believe self-defence as a principle is wrong, hence the opening lines of our repeal proposal. We do however believe that the way the present resolution is worded is an encitement to revenge, vigilantism, and at worse could be completeley misused by people wishing to be violent for violence sake.

Alright. Pretending every response to this didn't happen, how about you show some wording that I Can't Misuse. Dare ya.

OOC: All day, I've been trying to figure out if this was a compliment or not...

It is a compliment. Like the guy or not, he is a tenacious and well focused individual who always has his ducks in a row.

If Great Britain represented the whole of Europe, I would apologise. But, seeing as it doesn't, your comments are just as irrelevant as the earlier USA-centric comments.


I'm sorry - what? I'm from Europe myself and I know of no country in Europe that DOES NOT have legislation enshrining the principle of self defence.

I presume you're Swedish so you will understand the following (in Norwegian):
http://www.caplex.net/web/artikkel/...?art_id=9325622

Also, have a look at this for the UK position:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html#04

So rather than take a cheap shot at the US by generalising the 'European position' with reference to lower crime rates, take a look at the actual legislation in place in countries that have very low crime rates (ie Norway).

As someone else answered, and you're still wrong and looking even more foolish, Borgoa, we repeat ourselves and bold the "even more relevant" bits for your edification:


Now we give you leave to apologize for your oversight (you failed to read the article, as these were the opening paragraphs and you failed to research the topic) and the simple fact you are wrong.

We then would request you look up the definition of the word "Sisu" (it has a Finnish derevation) and realize we name our cities "Sisu ___" for a good reason.

We await your response.

As someone else answered, and you're still wrong and looking even more foolish, Borgoa, we repeat ourselves and bold the "even more relevant" bits for your edification:



We then would request you look up the definition of the word "Sisu" (it has a Finnish derevation) and realize we name our cities "Sisu ___" for a good reason.

We await your response.

I have answered your query above, if you actually write what you wish me to address more clearly, then I will be happy to. Using this kind of aggresive style of debate is just dull, so please expand on your point, and I shall address it.

BTW, I am fully aware of the meaning of the word Sisu - my mother was from Finland.

I have answered your query above, if you actually write what you wish me to address more clearly, then I will be happy to. Using this kind of aggresive style of debate is just dull, so please expand on your point, and I shall address it.

BTW, I am fully aware of the meaning of the word Sisu - my mother was from Finland.

*makes note that the representative from Borgoa is obviously without class, notes "Least Favored" trade status, and is done with the matter*

*makes note that the representative from Borgoa is obviously without class, notes "Least Favored" trade status, and is done with the matter*

The Borgoan authorities and people thank you for your declaration that we are without class. The social democratic government has been for most of its current term been trying to erradicate any last vestiges of a class-based society in Borgoa.

To repeal NSUN Resolution 94 is an authoritavive proposal to strip away an individual nation's right to defend its borders and sovereignty.

The phrase "reasonable force" should be left vague. We all have different interpretations of "reasonable force" and if we allow another country to define "reasonable force" for us, then where is our sovereignty? What's reasonable force to The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris (ARTNH) may not be reasonable to another country.

I will not wait another country's permission to initiate retaliation or preemptive strikes. I could not allow any international governing council to place fixed definitions of "reasonable force" because it may jeopardize ARTNH's security and interest. It is not my duty to satisfy the international definition of "reasonable force." But it is my duty to satisfy the safety and security of my citizens without foreign pressure.

Resolution 94 clearly states that reasonable force could only be used when faced by an act of unlawful aggression, imminent or current, as defense. To repeal our right to defend our citizenry is dangerous and total neglect of individual freedom.

Retribution and revenge is not a bad thing. It allows ARTNH to militarily prosecute rogue nations and serve justice. We cannot allow rogue leaders to guzzle whiskey and wine and merrymake in their palaces after accomplishing an attack against us. We will issue a retaliatory strike at once.

Outlaw regimes will flourish around the world because this proposal will eliminate the threat of punishment and retaliation. A threat of retaliation must be maintained and will deter rogue nations to attack first.

Resolution 94 is violence in defensive form. Repealing it is suicide.