NationStates Jolt Archive

My resoultion, the Gun Distribution Act, is about arming citizens to be able to defend themselves, and essientially making all UN members have mandatory gun safety classes in their schools, and, well, ill just post the resoloution so you can see for yourself:

Gun Distribution Act
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control
Decision: Relax
Proposed by: Charleno

Description: Noting that in many Countries crime is a serious problem
I would like to introduce a new bill that, if passed, would stop crime in it's tracks.

If you were a criminal, would you try to break into a home with people you know to be armed inside? IF so, right now you're probably not reading this, since youve passed on.

Therefor, I would like to propose a system where you would distribute one(1) M-16A4 Selectfire Rifle to every citizen of a UN country once they become 18 years of age.

You would first go through a mandatory firearm safety class, wich could be held in school, and then go through a "pysche" test to make sure you were not a crazed killer in the making.

If you were ever convicted of a felony, your gun would be taken from you, and you would never be alowed to purchase, own, or shoot another firearm unless said conviction was somehow pardoned or reversed on appeal.

If you accept this proposal, you wont have an army: you will be an army.

I would oppose this on principle. However, I do wish to point out a possible loophole in the draft proposal. The language requiring people to undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to receiving a firearm does not explicitly state that a person, once failing said evaluation, will not obtain a firearm; in fact, a strict interpretation of this proposal would require the opposite. Furthermore, the excessive use of the second person pronoun (which really has no place in a UN document, in my opinion) creates unneccessary vagueness. For instance, who is charged with the distribution of the rifles in question?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

We would like to know exactly why you would give our citizens such primitive weapons. Sure, our ancestors used them before the U.S. fell apart due to its own greed, but our ancestors also thought trying to limit weapons for honest citizens was a good idea (much to no one's surprise, it failed to produce the desired results).

Ahhhh....

In short, this is an internal matter and none of the business of the UN.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Ahhhh....

In short, this is an internal matter and none of the business of the UN.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Agreed :).

Not all nations have the same problems with crime rates. Waterana has a decent, in fact very extensive social welfare system and crime here is totally unknown. We don't want or need our citizens armed to the teeth to protect themselves from criminals who don't exist. Giving citizens guns is best left up to individual nations to decide based on need.

We would like to know exactly why you would give our citizens such primitive weapons. Sure, our ancestors used them before the U.S. fell apart due to its own greed, but our ancestors also thought trying to limit weapons for honest citizens was a good idea (much to no one's surprise, it failed to produce the desired results).
Umm...what "primitive weapon" would that be? the M-16A4 is a very reliable weapon.

And what do you meen that this is an internal matter an none of the UN's concern? I believe crime prevention is a very international concern. We pass a vote to save dolphins, but when one comes up to save innocent human lives, we reject it? That makes sense in your twisted mind maybe, but i really cant understand it.

Umm...what "primitive weapon" would that be? the M-16A4 is a very reliable weapon.

Perhaps he may be talking about Plasma or other such weapons? Many nations in the UN are technologically way past mere gunpowder and projectiles; other UN nations are not that technologically advanced. Would it really be a good idea to ensure that a group of cave dwellers who have only rudimentary concepts of language should be forced to carry a weapon they have no hope in understanding?!

I believe crime prevention is a very international concern

Uh-huh. And how, might I enquire, does a burglary in Cobdenia, a rape in Waterana, or a murder in Goobergrunchia going to afffect Charleno?

We pass a vote to save dolphins, but when one comes up to save innocent human lives, we reject it?

Well, the resolution specified that it only pertained to international waters, therefore it would indeed be an international matter (although it doesn't stop it from being a daft proposal). And how exactly would arming a bunch of cavemen going to save innocent lives? And anyway, your proposal doesn't take into account that former criminals might need to protect themselves or there families; and I fail to see ANY logic behind giving them an automatic rifle over a semi-automatic pistol, or even a non-lethal taser.

A non leathal tazer? that is probably the worst idea that any1 has ever had, including me, wich is saying something.
Just answer these questions for me:
1. How long does a tazer's effect last on a Drug-Filled criminal?
2.How far must you be from them to have the tazer work?
3.How does a dolphin being killed in cobdenia effect Charleno?
4.What percent of the population is actually bent on killing people(lets say its .01%, meaning that everytime a criminal pulls a gun, there are 10,000 barrels that he must dodge. I guess that one was a rhetorical question.)
5.Name one country with that has more murderers than honest people.
6.Plasma guns. Thats great, except i was actually being REALISTIC. Just tell me how a plasma gun works.
7. Ok, you want to give them pistols? Tell me the name of the pistol you would, theoretically, give the people, if you had to.
8.Have you ever fired a gun in your entire life?

A non leathal tazer? that is probably the worst idea that any1 has ever had, including me, wich is saying something.
Just answer these questions for me:
1. How long does a tazer's effect last on a Drug-Filled criminal?
2.How far must you be from them to have the tazer work?
3.How does a dolphin being killed in cobdenia effect Charleno?
4.What percent of the population is actually bent on killing people(lets say its .01%, meaning that everytime a criminal pulls a gun, there are 10,000 barrels that he must dodge. I guess that one was a rhetorical question.)
5.Name one country with that has more murderers than honest people.
6.Plasma guns. Thats great, except i was actually being REALISTIC. Just tell me how a plasma gun works.
7. Ok, you want to give them pistols? Tell me the name of the pistol you would, theoretically, give the people, if you had to.
8.Have you ever fired a gun in your entire life?

1. Couldn't give a shit; it's your daft proposal, not mine.
2. Couldn't give a shit; it's your daft proposal, not mine.
3. It doesn't, and neither does the resolution prohibit this. It specifically said that it applied only to international waters where, by definition, only international law applies.
4. In Cobdenia, it's low. Somewhere else, maybe a former psychiatric prison island where the inmates rebelled and formed an independant country, it might be high. This is Nation States, not the real world.
5. Again, see above. I can't think of any examples on NS, but there could be. All I need to do is form another nation, or change the history of Cobdenia, and BING! there would be one.
6. http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/newbie.gif This is NS, not RL. There are countries that can travel faster than the speed of light, there are countries populated by Giant Man Eating Penguins; there are countries which haven't quite got the hang of fire, and there are countries which live on the back or tortoises. Get used to it.
7. Couldn't give a shit; it's your daft proposal, not mine.
8. Yes, I was in the Navy cadets; I learnt to fire L1A1 GP rifles. However, that is irrelevant. I could be lying. I could be General Sir Michael Jackson, GCB, CBE, DSO. I could be Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan. I could be the Dalai Lama. I might even be your old home economics teacher. Prove that I'm not.

It might be worth your while looking at the DLE guide to arguements on the UN

3.How does a dolphin being killed in cobdenia effect Charleno?
You are erroneously assuming that all who argue against you had supported the dolphin resolution. This is most likely not true, as most of the regulars here seemed to dislike it.
I am not sure whether Cobdenia supported it, but you might wish to not immediately make an assumption of the sort to use as an argument against others.

While we are all for the right to own guns we oppose this measure for the following reasons. First off we sell guns to our people give them for free. Secondly we recognize that a portion of our population does not wish to own guns for their personal reason we respect this choice of theirs. Thirdly we dislike the mention of a specific gun in the resolution we produce many effective, easy to use, and reliable guns of our own that are popular among our people and refuse to be forced to use a certain type produced by another nation. Therefore we must reject this proposial.

General Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

Umm...what "primitive weapon" would that be? the M-16A4 is a very reliable weapon.

During its heyday, the M16 series was known as one of the most unreliable weapons used by any of the powerful weapons. In spite of all of the effort that went into making the weapons viable, they had a multitude of problems. These problems were what led, in part, to American soldiers actively abandoning the weapon during the second and third Iraqi conflicts in favor of the native AK-47s. The M16 series is known for being too large to use effectively in urban encounters (being as it is an extremely obvious weapon) and encounters where soldiers are in vehicles and need to be able to adjust rapidly. The weapons are also known for jamming when getting dirty (even if said dirt is a grain of sand), having problems with bullets being deflected by blades of grass, and having an ineffective stopping power due to bullet size. The third part helped soldiers during the third Iraqi conflict, as they had problems with bullets overheating and firing off without the trigger being pulled, resulting in thousands of soldiers being wounded by their own weapons by shots that would have been lethal if the bullets were larger. In addition, the bullpup variations had lessened firepower than their assault rifle cousins and tended to overheat before the first magazine was empty. These problems are what led to the XM8, and the later OICW (with this using a larger bullet size than originally intended), completely replacing the M16 series.

Ironically, the AK series managed to continue the entire time, with the AK-47 remaining in service in many nations up until this day. We even use two variations of it, the AK-207 Disruptor Rifle and AK-208 Plasma Rifle.

And what do you meen that this is an internal matter an none of the UN's concern? I believe crime prevention is a very international concern. We pass a vote to save dolphins, but when one comes up to save innocent human lives, we reject it? That makes sense in your twisted mind maybe, but i really cant understand it.

Note that most of us opposing this one also opposed the dolphin resolution. And, really, this does nothing to save innocent lives. All it does is distribute a dangerous and primitive weapon, even by the standards of the period the weapon was used, that has been shown to be either useless or deadly to the people carrying it when put in extreme conditions. If it were the XM8, an excellent weapon in all aspects except it inherited the problem of stopping power from the M16 series, then maybe we'd bother arguing about the variant technology levels of the UN instead of pointing out the downfalls of one of the U.S.'s many acts of idiocy during its short and ultimately disasterous existance. We normally prefer not to speak ill of the dead, but even we have to admit that our ancestors were among the greatest bastions of stupidity at several points in history.

Thats great. Ok, ill use the goddam XM8 or an AK variant in my next proposal....maybe a barret 50 cal for those who score extremely high on the marksmanship test...
You know what? I don't think you should approve my proposal. I assumed that most countries were fairly realistic in Nationstates, and, in the real world, this would work out. Hell, the swiss are doing pretty good with it.

I just got an idea....instead of the M-16A4 we use an M1A! The "small bullets" of a .223 would be replaced with a sniper-esque bullet, the .308. I wouldn't even have to make Barrets for better marksman, just slap a scope on an M1A!

....Waits for a barrage of posts detailing how the M1A lead to America's so called downfall even though we are Have the best military in the world, except for the swiss since their entire population is their military....

Found this article online. The swiss are doing essentially what i proposed, if you haven' already figured that out:
According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.

The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

And now can u say that my proposal, at least in the real world, would lower crime rates?

You really need to read DLE guide to UN arguments, especially my additions about studies; for one set of studies, there is a study that shews the opposite. The fact the study is from 1996 renders it out of date, as for a start, in 2001 members of the cantonal parliament were shot at in Zug by an assassin with a legally owned (and I believe, military issued) firearm.

Although you fail to realise that crime rates are not exclusively affected by the availability of firearms; education, consription into national service, reletive wealth and income disparity, low unemployment and several other factors contribute to it.

We find your comments amusing. It wasn't the M16 series that led to the downfall of the United States. It was a combination of internal divisions, a depression, World War Three, and the fact the Canadians had cut a deal with China and managed to invade the U.S. with the most massive land force since the Huns. It was around this time that the foundations of DLE were laid, as the social and political atmospheres were just right to induce a world-wide exodus to somewhere which wasn't part of the chaos and stupidity of the period.

OOC: The history I provided is an IC narrative of DLE history.

It sounds like an interesting idea and it could possibly work but there is alot of people out there who could do pretty bad things with a gun of their own and if it doesn't get out of hand enough from that the crime rate might even go up.

The point of the argument is that criminals, by definition, commit crimes. If it is, therefor, a crime to get such and such a weopon, what stops criminals from getting it?

Thats the reason gun control doesnt work. Guns become like drugs: there illegal, but everyone can get them.

If you really wanted to, you could get an M-16 right now. it would be illegal, but criminals dont care about that, do they?

Okay, here's a logical thought: Make a resolution about gun control that deals with making it legal for citizens to own guns. The route you are taking is a bad one for what you are trying to achieve.

what about countries like mine where guns are outlawed totally, even for the police

what about countries like mine where guns are outlawed totally, even for the police

Those are countries those of us of sufficient military size and with the willingness to annex refer to as "lunch."

Aww, leave a piece now and again?

Seriously, Cakekizy, realize:

1) UN resolutions only affect UN nations.
2) Other nations are more then willing to eat your young for breakfast.

Now, about those guns...

guns in the community keeps the safety and order in our community without it so a guy enters your house would you defend it with a knife or a gun you decide i'm for gun rights guns have helped us take wars and perserve our country

Found this article online. The swiss are doing essentially what i proposed, if you haven' already figured that out:
According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.

The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

And now can u say that my proposal, at least in the real world, would lower crime rates?

[OOC]
I think you have a somewhat misguided notion of the situation in Switzerland.

First of all, Swiss army reservists (essentially most the male population between 20 and 30) don't OWN the guns they take home from their military training, they merely KEEP them at home. From the Swiss Embassy (http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html):
Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities.
These guns are most definitely not to be used for self-defence, but are issued in case of a foreign invasion to be used for the defence of the realm. If they were used in self-defence in anything other than a life-and-death situation, the house-holder would be prosecuted by the state and charged with assault or, if shooting caused death, with manslaughter or even murder.

If you want a reason for low levels of gun crime, and indeed other crime, look instead at Switzerland's progressive social policies such as a decent welfare system, and the high involvment of citizens in decisionmaking at all political levels. Even poor people get to vote in Switzerland, after all it's not Florda.

Regarding the comparison of the situation in England and Wales in 1900, and the situation 1994, this is entirely spurious. I very much doubt it is even statistically significant, given that you're comparing 0.0014% with 0.001%, and given the changes in data collection methods and even the definition of homocide.

Your proposal has an ice-cube in hell's chance of getting approved and passing. Keep trying.

That's basically what I was saying earlier, Aardvarks, although you went into more detail; let's hope he notices this time!

It's interesting to note that the form of gun ownership in Switzerland was pretty much what the writers of the second ammendment had in mind when they wrote it; it had nothing to do with self defence, but rather giving the right for civilians to form an armed militia.

what about countries like mine where guns are outlawed totally, even for the police
Those countries just sit down and wait to die.
The swiss are allowed to keep their guns after their usefulness in the militia has expired. And, yes, they can be used for self defence.

So your ignoring the possibility that the relationship between gun ownership and low crime rates is pure conjecture?

Ahhhh....

In short, this is an internal matter and none of the business of the UN.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

I must agree. This is not an international issue. Furthermore, Darkumbrian citizens are not allowed guns, period. The only exception to that rule is the military, and the governmental bodyguards. Hunters use bows and traps in my country.

Well, I think we should ALLOW, Them to have guns, Knowing that they Have taken classes, and then they must get a gun permit, however They should have a Homing Device on the gun and A Thing that they can scan So they cannot enter Any store, But For saftey reasons scanners should be on the doors of Homes as well. There's a limit to 5 per house hold And most people have to use pistols, We should arm Police with Tom Clancy like guns.