NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as guns are machines used for the sole purpose of killing, I propose that they should be banned. Owning, possessing, buying and selling guns should be illegal-- after all they're more dangerous than drugs. Once everyone gives up their guns, the world would be safer. This way, everyone can live a peaceful life, free of fear and safe from being shot. I realize that some black market guns might be left, but it would be a lot better than the current system in which anyone can own a killing machine. That just seems so dangerous to me.

Seeing as guns are machines used for the sole purpose of killing, I propose that they should be banned. Owning, possessing, buying and selling guns should be illegal-- after all they're more dangerous than drugs. Once everyone gives up their guns, the world would be safer. This way, everyone can live a peaceful life, free of fear and safe from being shot. I realize that some black market guns might be left, but it would be a lot better than the current system in which anyone can own a killing machine. That just seems so dangerous to me.

1. What's wrong with killing? It's quite fun.
2. Drugs aren't dangerous, so the fact that guns are more dangerous than them is no biggy.
3. It will hurt our economies. Our children will starve. More people will die than if we didn't ban them.
4. The black market guns will exist. And what better way to combat fire than with fire?
5. No. Ban them in your own country.

1. What's wrong with killing? It's quite fun.
2. Drugs aren't dangerous, so the fact that guns are more dangerous than them is no biggy.
3. It will hurt our economies. Our children will starve. More people will die than if we didn't ban them.
4. The black market guns will exist. And what better way to combat fire than with fire?
5. No. Ban them in your own country.

1. I am guessing that in most of your points you are at least partially kidding. Killing is quite fun in video games, in the Middle East and in America, apparently, but I don't agree with it.
2. The reason I used drugs as an example is because they are illegal. Why are drugs illegal? I guess because they're dangerous to people's health. They are less dangerous than guns however. I fail to see the logic there.
3. Hahahahaha! More people will die... HAhahaa
4. Yea I did mention that. But actually the saying is "you Can't Fight fire with fire."
5. Is there some way on this game to actually do that?

Seeing as guns are machines used for the sole purpose of killing, I propose that they should be banned. Owning, possessing, buying and selling guns should be illegal-- after all they're more dangerous than drugs. Once everyone gives up their guns, the world would be safer. This way, everyone can live a peaceful life, free of fear and safe from being shot. I realize that some black market guns might be left, but it would be a lot better than the current system in which anyone can own a killing machine. That just seems so dangerous to me.

I urge The Shinji Jungle to implement this resolution internally for a few years. I am sure plenty of nations would welcome a neighbour with a disarmed army.

OOC: I am teasing you, but I hope you can see my point. ;)

1. I am guessing that in most of your points you are at least partially kidding. Killing is quite fun in video games, in the Middle East and in America, apparently, but I don't agree with it.
2. The reason I used drugs as an example is because they are illegal. Why are drugs illegal? I guess because they're dangerous to people's health. They are less dangerous than guns however. I fail to see the logic there.
3. Hahahahaha! More people will die... HAhahaa
4. Yea I did mention that. But actually the saying is "you Can't Fight fire with fire."
5. Is there some way on this game to actually do that?

1. You've obviously never been to Gruenberg. And, ok, you don't agree with killing I do. I do. Why is your opinion better than mine.
2. Not in Gruenberg. Drugs are legal there. Why are drugs legal? Because they're not dangerous to people's health. As such, saying 'guns are more dangerous than drugs' is like saying 'guns are more dangerous than pillows'.
3. It's not funny. In the actual world, people need money to buy food. Banning guns would shut down one of our major industries, and in doing so, make a lot of people poor and homeless. Yes, more people would die. (Ok, you're right, it is quite funny.)
4. In Gruenberg, the saying is "fight fire with an AK-47: it's good for bone structure". Without guns, our police will be at the mercy of terrorists and criminals.
5. You will get an issue sooner or later in which 'ban all guns' is an option. Until then, you can simply state that guns are banned in your country; no one will challenge you on that.

1. I am guessing that in most of your points you are at least partially kidding. Killing is quite fun in video games, in the Middle East and in America, apparently, but I don't agree with it.
2. The reason I used drugs as an example is because they are illegal. Why are drugs illegal? I guess because they're dangerous to people's health. They are less dangerous than guns however. I fail to see the logic there.
3. Hahahahaha! More people will die... HAhahaa
4. Yea I did mention that. But actually the saying is "you Can't Fight fire with fire."
5. Is there some way on this game to actually do that?
1. Nice dig against Middle Easterners and Americans.
2. Drugs are not illegal in thousands of countries in the NationStates universe.
3. In some nations, more people will die if guns are banned... countless countries' chief industry is arms manufacturing. You're basically handing down a death sentence to their economies.
4. So if somebody approaches you with a gun, you're saying that it would be pointless to have one of your own for defense? Hmm... seems to me that sometimes you can fight fire with fire.
5. Sure. Pretend. Make-Believe. That's what 90% of this game is based on, pretty much.

I urge The Shinji Jungle to implement this resolution internally for a few years. I am sure plenty of nations would welcome a neighbour with a disarmed army.

OOC: I am teasing you, but I hope you can see my point. ;)

Hahaha yeah I do see your point. Thats why I don't want to do it alone...

Hahaha yeah I do see your point. Thats why I don't want to do it alone...

There are 30,000 UN nations. There are 80,000 non-UN nations. Taking all the guns off UN nations is a bad idea.

Hahaha yeah I do see your point. Thats why I don't want to do it alone...
The problem is, many of us have neighbors that aren't in the UN. If we're forced to disarm, our neighbors won't be.

There are 30,000 UN nations. There are 80,000 non-UN nations. Taking all the guns off UN nations is a bad idea.Rather depends on if you're in the UN or not ;)

OOC. POOH! i wrote a very sensible article detailing my exact position and it looged me out. Ghr! Let's try again.
IC....
We do not feel a socially protectionist policy would work.
We would also like to state that we do not think a libertarian approach would work either.

We would propose, a libertarianesque policy on the macro scale, however we feel that arms trading should be controlled, not very tightly, but controlled.
On the micro scale we would propose an educational approach as we already do with drugs, so that people know the repercussions.

We would also like to state, that this is also our position on drug movement.
Both recreational and medicinal.
We feel this is necaserry at this juncture, due to the many parallels that can be drawn between drugs and guns.

The main bulk buyer of guns is The State.
The main bulk buyer of drugs is The State.
This we say should translate well into loose regulation, that would keep our citizens feeling safe as well entertained in a sensible and orderly manner.

We do not feel a socially protectionist policy would work.
We would also like to state that we do not think a libertarian approach would work either.

We would propose, a libertarianesque policy on the macro scale, however we feel that arms trading should be controlled, not very tightly, but controlled.
On the micro scale we would propose an educational approach as we already do with drugs, so that people know the repercussions.

You're basing international policy on one aspect of your national policy regarding an unrelated area? That doesn't sound good. Besides, all these tags you're attributing to various approaches are rather meaningless. What matters is the effective rule of government - which ensures the greatest rights possible - and by restricting people's ability to gun down one another in the streets over a spilt coffee cup, you are impeding our ability to govern effectively. The arms trade serves the many, and provides employment - and thus food, housing and so on - for too many people to have undue restriction placed on it for no good reason.

We would also like to state, that this is also our position on drug movement.
Both recreational and medicinal.
We feel this is necaserry at this juncture, due to the many parallels that can be drawn between drugs and guns.

The main bulk buyer of guns is The State.
The main bulk buyer of drugs is The State.
This we say should translate well into loose regulation, that would keep our citizens feeling safe as well entertained in a sensible and orderly manner.

Drugs can be addictive. A beautiful feeling as it is to watch one's bullets tear through those who would defile the name of the Holy Sultan, guns are not addictive. Drugs can be grown, cheaply, by anyone. Guns require more technical expertise and access to parts, and in order to present a realistic threat, probably mechanised industry. Drawing parallels between drugs and guns is misleading and disingenuous, and will not lead to a responsible policy with regard to either area.

I should add that Gruenberg will oppose any restriction on the rights of citizens to property and protection.

*SNIP*
I should add that Gruenberg will oppose any restriction on the rights of citizens to property and protection.

As will the people of Cluichstan -- with our guns.

Drugs require technical expertise, without access to a lab, it is extremely hard to produce amphetamines.
This is beside the point.

We did not proprose the placing of restrictions upon citizens, alas we did not word our statement in a clear enough fashion.
What we meant, was that citizens are free to own weapons, as well as manufacture them within a legal business enviroment.
Also given proper licenses we say that business should be allowed to produce any type of weapon, but that there sale should be monitored, so that private citizens cannot get possession of NBC weapons. The mointoring should be of a loose kind. In that companies that only produce small arms, may sell to say, anyone over 18.
We where merely stating, that our citizens should be told about the full capabilities of the weapons that they have access to. This combined with a high overall level of education, means that people will have a sensible attitude towards guns, as well as mishaps involving hot beverages.

*snip*
...as well as mishaps involving hot beverages.

OOC: Please tell me this is an attempt at trolling... :rolleyes:

Drugs require technical expertise, without access to a lab, it is extremely hard to produce amphetamines.

So grow mushrooms.

Also given proper licenses we say that business should be allowed to produce any type of weapon, but that there sale should be monitored, so that private citizens cannot get possession of NBC weapons. The mointoring should be of a loose kind. In that companies that only produce small arms, may sell to say, anyone over 18.

1. No: we do not restrict trade in this way.
2. Why not? Citizens should be able to defend themselves: if they need to use nuclear weaponry to do so, then bring it on. More seriously, 'B' is already banned, and 'C' includes mace.
3. School can be rough. Imposing a restriction based purely age is nonsensical. When we say "all people have the right to property and protection", we mean it.

We where merely stating, that our citizens should be told about the full capabilities of the weapons that they have access to. This combined with a high overall level of education, means that people will have a sensible attitude towards guns, as well as mishaps involving hot beverages.

You can tell your citizens what you want. We generally find gun education programs pointless, and we don't believe the UN will legislate on them any time soon: too pro- for the antis, too anti- for the pros. Sorry.

EDIT: No, Cluich, they were responding to my remark.

OOC: Sorry, I'm a bit slow. Haven't cursed the UN forum with my presence for a while. :(

and 'C' includes mace.
To clarify the RL reference, Mace is a class 3 firearm and therefore banned as it is in the same arms bracket as semi-automatics, within Britain.

OOC OOC: Please tell me this is an attempt at trolling
Alas it was not, merely my lack of humour sense poking through, like some sort of cheerleader panty shot...but without any of the YAY!ness that would be inherent within that viewing.
IC
3. School can be rough. Imposing a restriction based purely age is nonsensical. When we say "all people have the right to property and protection", we mean it.
On that point we disagree with thee. We feel that as maturity is required for these things, we should let people mature a bit, with things that are dangerous to the self allowed at 16 and items that are dangerous to other legalised at 18.

To clarify the RL reference, Mace is a class 3 firearm and therefore banned as it is in the same arms bracket as semi-automatics, within Britain.

Ok. I don't realize you were speaking OOCly.

On that point we disagree with thee. We feel that as maturity is required for these things, we should let people mature a bit, with things that are dangerous to the self allowed at 16 and items that are dangerous to other legalised at 18.

We do not feel maturity is required to operate a gun; we most certainly do not think that the right to defend oneself is proportional to age. Furthermore, we still do not feel that it would be possible to create a UN proposal implementing an age restriction, as many oppose any proposal allowing gun ownership.

OOC: I will need a cheerleader panty shot for comparison. ;)

OOC: I will need a cheerleader panty shot for comparison. ;)
And I'd like a threesome with TATU, but it isn't going to happen.

And I'd like a threesome with TATU, but it isn't going to happen.

OOC: Damn! My sig comes back to bite me in the ass!

OOC: Damn! My sig comes back to bite me in the ass!
TATU biting you in the ass is another thing that's not gonna happen. ;) (OK, I will stop...)

We do not feel maturity is required to operate a gun
No it is not, we do feel that maturity is required to use one in a proper manner.

we most certainly do not think that the right to defend oneself is proportional to age. It is not. However, we are not at all comfortable with the notion of 11yr old school yard fights turning into something resembling across between The Magnificent Seven and Recess.

Ok. I don't realize you were speaking OOCly. OOC i wasn't really, kind of an odd grey area on that one, soz. i was just trying to clear up what may have been a confusing piece of conversation, if we where both operating on different legislative/cultural assumptions whilst trying to figure out what people would be able to get there hands on or can get there hands on.

To clarify the RL reference, Mace is a class 3 firearm and therefore banned as it is in the same arms bracket as semi-automatics, within Britain.Seriously? That makes absolutely no sense.

Tear gas... semi-automatic gun... tear gas... semi-automatic...

I mean, mace has a range of... what? 10 feet? Sheej. [/threadjack]

No it is not, we do feel that maturity is required to use one in a proper manner.

Again, why? Point gun, pull trigger. It's child's play. And what better toy than one that not only develops motor skills, but keeps the baby safe, leaving mother free to nip off for a quickie with the plumber?

It is not. However, we are not at all comfortable with the notion of 11yr old school yard fights turning into something resembling across between The Magnificent Seven and Recess.

No, of course not. The reason they don't is that gun ownership acts as deterrence: people are much less inclined to commit crimes, and yes, to bully, if they think the fat, freckled kid might be packing.

OOC i wasn't really, kind of an odd grey area on that one, soz. i was just trying to clear up what may have been a confusing piece of conversation, if we where both operating on different legislative/cultural assumptions whilst trying to figure out what people would be able to get there hands on or can get there hands on.

No problem. My fault too: we got our wires crossed.

Seriously? That makes absolutely no sense.

Tear gas... semi-automatic gun... tear gas... semi-automatic...

I mean, mace has a range of... what? 10 feet? Sheej. [/threadjack]

Many pocketknives and other blades, and mace or pepper spray canisters, although legal in the U.S., are illegal in the UK and may be confiscated.

From the State Department guide (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1052.html). Looks like it is true.

And no, I don't understand it either.

Again, why? Point gun, pull trigger. It's child's play. And what better toy than one that not only develops motor skills, but keeps the baby safe, leaving mother free to nip off for a quickie with the plumber?
We where not disagreeing with the ease with which a gun may be operated.
Yes it is very simple, very very simple. That is why rational thought must be the thing that slows the process down, allowing for a sensible resolution.
childish anger and frustration do not lead to a slow down of the
drawing gun=>killing
opponent process. Thus if rationality and maturity can slow the process to the point where people do not draw guns at all, then that is a good thing for all.

The point about the freckly child, is noted but dismissed.

Don't let me stop your debate, but this has appeared recently in another post, and you seem to be ignoring the essential question. Many nations in the UN want guns to be legal, many want guns to be heavily regulated, a few (like the proposer, apparently) want guns to be completely banned. The big issue:

What, in the name of freckly children, has this to do with the UN?

We where not disagreeing with the ease with which a gun may be operated.
Yes it is very simple, very very simple. That is why rational thought must be the thing that slows the process down, allowing for a sensible resolution.
childish anger and frustration do not lead to a slow down of the
drawing gun=>killing
opponent process. Thus if rationality and maturity can slow the process to the point where people do not draw guns at all, then that is a good thing for all.

Rationality is not based on age alone. Just because someone is a year older than me does not mean their behaviour will be any more rational. I'm not in favour of indiscriminate killing of people who don't deserve it, but equally, I do not believe that a 17 year old is necessarily less able to make the judgment on whether to shoot or not than an 18 year old is. Given the complexities of that assessment, in fact, the greater point - the right to protection - takes on the new, greater importance. As such, artificial age barriers do nothing but deny the young - often the most in need of protection - basic rights.

Rationality is not based on age alone.

Precisely why this is best left up to individual nations to decide for themselves.

Don't let me stop your debate, but this has appeared recently in another post, and you seem to be ignoring the essential question. Many nations in the UN want guns to be legal, many want guns to be heavily regulated, a few (like the proposer, apparently) want guns to be completely banned. The big issue:

What, in the name of freckly children, has this to do with the UN?

The debate is stemming from a proposal. I do agree, though, that civilian firearms should not be something the UN legislates; however, I didn't see any particular harm in continuing to discuss the merit of gun laws. After all, the role of the UN should not just be to pass legislation, but to provide a forum for international cooperation and discussion. If people learn something from Gruenberg's gun laws (or lack thereof) then that is a wholly good thing, even if no proposal comes of it. Nonetheless, I would not try to force my beliefs - in a right to property and protection for all people - on others.

The debate is stemming from a proposal. I do agree, though, that civilian firearms should not be something the UN legislates; however, I didn't see any particular harm in continuing to discuss the merit of gun laws. After all, the role of the UN should not just be to pass legislation, but to provide a forum for international cooperation and discussion. If people learn something from Gruenberg's gun laws (or lack thereof) then that is a wholly good thing, even if no proposal comes of it. Nonetheless, I would not try to force my beliefs - in a right to property and protection for all people - on others.

Yes, I knew your (extremely reasonable) opinion from before, just wanted to check if Darkyin shared the view.
Oh well, debating is fun, carry on! ;)

You can't ban guns because then you should also ban militaries and the effectivness of police. You elimanate the intimadation factor security guards have who are carring guns. The most important factor however is the black market. People will go underground and couintinue to buy and make guns.

OOC. as my country is just but intangible what i say is what i feel, i do however lack the ability to elucidate to any great degree.
IC!
We understand and agree with you, that people have a right to protect property and well being. That is why we have not banned guns, indeed they are freely avialable on the open market, upto a certain degree.
We feel it is better to nurture an eviroment where people do not think about commiting crime, thus do not feel the need to guard against it.
If crime is a rare thing, which it certainly is within our borders, then people do not feel threatened and do not feel the need to have an arsenal.

OOC, unfortunately i cannot articulate my arguement fully. annoyingly enough just getting the jist of it does not suffice. it does also sound really rather fuzzy and just a bit too cuddly and..well...wooly.*sigh*

From the desk of Emperor Fidel

Our people would simply fashion weapons from sticks and dental floss. I've seen it, its not pretty. You must remove the motive to hurt, if you ever intend to stop it.





Fidel
Emperor, Empire of Corporate Oppression
Supreme Chancellor, Weinerdogstan