NationStates Jolt Archive

Waaay back (in the summer?) I expressed an interest in Gun Amnesty legislation. There was a discussion, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409795), but I never actually drafted anything. Well, I've had some new ideas and here's a draft now.

I like it. If that means anything.
The United Nations,

SUPPORTING families and individuals in environments of gun possession--illegal guns or not--who struggle to leave such environments,

RECOGNIZING an increase in personal freedoms and human rights when a citizen is allowed to renege upon gun possession without legal repercussion,

NOTING a gun amnesty with United Nations oversight could be more credible among citizens than one with local backing,

DETERMINGING this added credibility may ensure more rights to citizens to remove themselves from violent lives:

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:

a) Citizens may turn in guns only: unloaded and without ammunition on any citizen’s person, and security at UN facilities is maintained by UN personnel;

b) Citizens who turn in guns may not be prosecuted for the possession of that gun (should possession of that type of gun be illegal);

c) Nations may examine any gun collected for forensic evidence, and retain any gun for an indefinite period of time while investigation of crimes possibly committed with that gun are investigated;

d) UNGA personnel completely and promptly destroys all received guns, except those retained for investigation--preferably by incineration or severe enough defacement of the gun to assure it can not be repaired without extreme and costly measures;

2.ALLOWS for nations to request more than one UNGA for their nations, and make any request regarding operations at one or all UNGAs within their national boundaries, but MAINTAINS the right of the UN to deny requests from nations concerning UNGAs, including initial requests for a UNGA;

3.PLACES the entirety of operations at UNGAs under UN oversight, meaning:

a)The UN may disallow or allow any practices, funding, or persons from the UNGA, exercise jurisdiction over any other matter involving a UNGA, and remove any UNGA at any time and for any reason from any host nation;

b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide not to host a UNGA any longer, at which time the UNGA will close immediately, and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner;

c)Funding of UNGA facilities, non-UN personnel (the UN personnel are funded strictly by the UN), funds for forensic investigation or storage facilities for retained guns, and any other UNGA expenditure is the responsibility of the host nation or the UN or both as determined by agreement between both parties before a UNGA is placed in the host nation;

4. SUPPORTS National gun amnesties that strive for the same goals as UNGAs, and which operate on the same basic premises.


If you have any questions comments or complaints, send them in to our Foreign Affairs office. To help ensure we respond make sure their written out on the back of a signed check for $213.27 made out to Powerhungry Chipmunks: Lord of the French Fries.

EDITED: PREAMBLE: to emphasize why UNGA could be more trusted in the hands of the UN,

MISCELLANY: Fonzoland's suggested changes and more tweaking of the preamble,

Clause 2: to let nations request anything with regard to UNGA operations.

Brilliant. As ever. In 1 (c), it should be 'guns', not 'gun'? Otherwise, I don't have much to add right now.

Don't get it. Why is it wrong to keep the guns for my army/police? This would create an extra incentive for countries with illegal gun ownership to implement the programme.

Also, you should elaborate a bit more on the credibility issue, otherwise the proposal will be attacked as irrelevant.

Also also, the eventual UN funding comes from... (?)

If it means anything, I like it too.

Don't get it. Why is it wrong to keep the guns for my army/police? This would create an extra incentive for countries with illegal gun ownership to implement the programme.

Also, you should elaborate a bit more on the credibility issue, otherwise the proposal will be attacked as irrelevant.

Also also, the eventual UN funding comes from... (?)

If it means anything, I like it too.
i couldnt see anything to prevent you giving the weapons from to the army/police

also, you should know by now where the funding comes from


i followed the earlier discussion, and my position hasnt changed: i am all for it, it should be implemented

i couldnt see anything to prevent you giving the weapons from to the army/police

also, you should know by now where the funding comes from

As a famous philosopher once said, read the funky proposal:

d) UN personnel completely destroy all guns turned in to a UNGA, except those with a “hold” on them, preferably by incineration or severe enough defacement of the gun to assure it can not be repaired without extreme and costly measures;

Also, if I knew where the UN gets money, I wouldn't ask.

I would justify this on the basis that many of the guns found would not be suitable for military application, because in general military arms are standardised. I don't know PC's justification, though, but I suspect you simply wouldn't be able to convert that many to military/police use, and in any case, that opens up the possibility for loss in transit, and corruption.

I would justify this on the basis that many of the guns found would not be suitable for military application, because in general military arms are standardised. I don't know PC's justification, though, but I suspect you simply wouldn't be able to convert that many to military/police use, and in any case, that opens up the possibility for loss in transit, and corruption.

Yes, but couldn't the government make that decision itself? Say, selling them in a second hand bazaar for third world countries? :cool:

Yes, but couldn't the government make that decision itself? Say, selling them in a second hand bazaar for third world countries? :cool:
that would probably defeat the purpose. as for funding, where do you think it comes from? it comes from member nations, just like every othere freaking resolution :headbang:

that would probably defeat the purpose. as for funding, where do you think it comes from? it comes from member nations, just like every othere freaking resolution :headbang:

My pacience is gone. Read the fucking proposal or shut the fuck up. Please.

c)Funding of UNGA facilities, non-UN personnel (the UN personnel are funded strictly by the UN), funds for forensic investigation or storage facilities for “held” guns, and any other UNGA expenditure is the responsibility of the host nation or the UN or both as determined by agreement from both parties before a UNGA is placed in the host nation;

Now, would you care to quote the resolution that gives the UN its own funds for implementing resolutions? If this makes no sense, my next proposal will build 25 football stadiums in every nation, all funded by the UN. Now, obviously I can be missing something, but for sure I am not being as thick as some of us here.

I'm certain there's an obvious answer to this that I'm missing due to lack of sleep, but what exactly is the incentive for citizens to participate in this? It seems that if a person was truly committed to terminating their gun ownership, they would've buried the thing in the backyard long ago.

That being said, I'd support it even without a substantial incentive, as there's not a potential negative effect to be found.

The-Republic']I'm certain there's an obvious answer to this that I'm missing due to lack of sleep, but what exactly is the incentive for citizens to participate in this? It seems that if a person was truly committed to terminating their gun ownership, they would've buried the thing in the backyard long ago.

That being said, I'd support it even without a substantial incentive, as there's not a potential negative effect to be found.

Yes, I seem to recall a RL guns for toys programme somewhere. But apparently the incentive here is not going to jail in case somebody digs up your backyard.

The-Republic']I'm certain there's an obvious answer to this that I'm missing due to lack of sleep, but what exactly is the incentive for citizens to participate in this? It seems that if a person was truly committed to terminating their gun ownership, they would've buried the thing in the backyard long ago.Well, to answer your question, I can refer to RL nuclear disarmament. When there are calls for disarmament, does anyone suggest burying them in the ground? No, and not just because of the environmental hazards. If one is trying to disarm and renege a certain lifestyle, one needs to be guard oneself against it in the future. If I want to quit being a circus clown, I need to move away from the circus. If it's easily buried in the backyard, then it will be easily dug up.

Also, yes, Fonzoland's got the nail on the head with illegal weapons (turning them in to be destroyed is much safer, legally speaking, then leaving open the possibility of future discovery).

Now, would you care to quote the resolution that gives the UN its own funds for implementing resolutions? If this makes no sense, my next proposal will build 25 football stadiums in every nation, all funded by the UN. Now, obviously I can be missing somethingYes, I believe you have missed something. No, there isn't a proposal describing how the UN acquires funds, but it isn't necessary for us to assume there are some funds there--just like the proposal can assume there are methods for the UN to effect oversight.

This isn't a perfect solution, it would be easier if there were universal standards for UN funding (and there have been noble attempts to put those standards in place). But, as the loss at not having them (a little ambiguity) is less than the cost of trying to put them in place (drafting and passing a UN funding proposal before this one) I see no need to fret.

In fact, there are some that would say that there shouldn't be a resolution explicitly stating how UN funds are acquired, managed, allocated, etc. because that might take away from the freeness of UN roleplay. Kind of like coding the UN Gnomes into a resolution, it'd be good for those who use the Gnomes in their roleplay, but kind of a hindrance to any that didn't.

Don't get it. Why is it wrong to keep the guns for my army/police? This would create an extra incentive for countries with illegal gun ownership to implement the programme.

Also, you should elaborate a bit more on the credibility issue, otherwise the proposal will be attacked as irrelevant.These two issues are tied together. As Gruenberg said, national government corruption is what is feared. The idea of having a UN Gun Amnesty in the first place is to grant credibility to it, and give people confidence that the gun they turn in won't ever shoot them. If gov'ts are free to use and sell these then this credibility is gone and there's no sense in the UN even being involved.

However, there's an interesting point in Gruenberg's post. What types of weapons are at the amnesty? My immediate answer is "whatever UN oversight and the nat'l gov't agree upon", but, looking back at the proposal, I see there's no way for the nat'l gov't to "make requests" about the conduct at the UNGA (like the UN can in clause 3a), they can only stop being a host if they dislike the UN's rules. Perhaps I can edit clause 2 to look like this:2.ALLOWS for nations to request more than one UNGA for their nations, and to request changes in the conduct at any or all of the UNGA's in their country but MAINTAINS the right to deny requests from nations concerning UNGAs, current or proposed;Then, I think, nations have rights to negotiate what is and isn't at the UNGA, etc. And they still have the right to terminate the agreement at any time.

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in any member nation which requests one (and is approved by UN oversight), for the purpose of citizens turning in unwanted guns, under the following requirements:
I have one small Quibble with the proposal. Doesnt the above quoted piece of the proposed legislation give a certain optional element to the resolution. I was led to believe all proposals that were "Optional" were deemed illegal.

I can say in my interpretation of the Above that if this were passed the gnomes have enforced this automatically yet this loophole allows me to "NOT" request a UNGA. Thus whats the point?

I can say in my interpretation of the Above that if this were passed the gnomes have enforced this automatically yet this loophole allows me to "NOT" request a UNGA. Thus whats the point?

The Microcredit Bazaar worked along the same lines, so I can't believe this would be illegal. And, as I see it, the point is that this creates a UN agency, without which such a project might not feasible. As PC said, it being a UNGA, instead of just a national amnesty, should lend the idea greater credibility. But, you're right, you don't have to request a UNGA (an UNGA?).

The Microcredit Bazaar worked along the same lines, so I can't believe this would be illegal. And, as I see it, the point is that this creates a UN agency, without which such a project might not feasible. As PC said, it being a UNGA, instead of just a national amnesty, should lend the idea greater credibility. But, you're right, you don't have to request a UNGA (an UNGA?).
1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA)

Your reply makes me want to say "UNGA BUNGA". :D

(Disclaimer! Bad joke. I am Tired. I am going to bed.)

I support the draft. It should be passed. You should be stoned for its ingenuity.


And the zest it rapes my pallette with has excited my rep.

Yay, MadLibs!

I understand why the UN may make this more credible, my point was that you should try to justify it in the proposal text. A lot of people are going to be using the "none of UN's business" on you, so covering that angle would help.

I understand why the UN may make this more credible, my point was that you should try to justify it in the proposal text. A lot of people are going to be using the "none of UN's business" on you, so covering that angle would help.
That's a good point. I'll see how I can expand the idea (I'm a wee bit too tired to do it now).

Also, I figured to name the proposal "Opt-In UN Gun Amnesty" or something that emphasizes the fact that it isn't forced on anynation--something the layvoter seemed to miss the last two times I tried to set up UN services.

So what would stop me from prosecuting criminals again? considering these people are in possesion of an illegal firearm, that likely was used in a violent crime? Criminal amnesty just really isn't that great of an idea.

Then again all guns are legal and encouraged in Naviblah.


:mp5:

So what would stop me from prosecuting criminals again? considering these people are in possesion of an illegal firearm, that likely was used in a violent crime? Criminal amnesty just really isn't that great of an idea.
That's sort of the point... people who participate in this are attempting to leave their violent/dangerous past behind. In The-Republic, we focus our efforts on rehabilitation rather than punishment. I realize and respect that many nations operate differently, but I think the point of this resolution is to encourage citizens to live a safer life while removing dangerous weapons.

So what would stop me from prosecuting criminals again?
Nothing. If they go on to commit further crimes after taking advantage of the amnesty, you can prosecute them.
considering these people are in possesion of an illegal firearm, that likely was used in a violent crime? Criminal amnesty just really isn't that great of an idea.
The purpose is to get these firearms off the streets and allow people who genuinely want to "turn over a new leaf" a chance to do so.

Then again all guns are legal and encouraged in Naviblah.


:mp5:
Then don't take part in it.

My pacience is gone. Read the fucking proposal or shut the fuck up. Please.



Now, would you care to quote the resolution that gives the UN its own funds for implementing resolutions? If this makes no sense, my next proposal will build 25 football stadiums in every nation, all funded by the UN. Now, obviously I can be missing something, but for sure I am not being as thick as some of us here.
i think it can be generally assumed that the funding comes from UN nations. it always comes from UN nations. there are plenty of resolutions that have passed which do not state where the funding comes from, and even now there are some that pass without stating it. it is just an accepted thing that the funding comes from nations, and is then put back into them with its implamentation.

The-Republic']That's sort of the point... people who participate in this are attempting to leave their violent/dangerous past behind. In The-Republic, we focus our efforts on rehabilitation rather than punishment. I realize and respect that many nations operate differently, but I think the point of this resolution is to encourage citizens to live a safer life while removing dangerous weapons.
Right on. It's not just about illegal weapons. It's about weapons. And regular people getting rid of them on their own.

Right on. It's not just about illegal weapons. It's about weapons. And regular people getting rid of them on their own.

Hmmm... especially in the case of legal weapons, I think an incentive to deliever might help.

The-Republic']That's sort of the point... people who participate in this are attempting to leave their violent/dangerous past behind. In The-Republic, we focus our efforts on rehabilitation rather than punishment. I realize and respect that many nations operate differently, but I think the point of this resolution is to encourage citizens to live a safer life while removing dangerous weapons.


I know it's your nations personal belief, but rehabilitation has been shown many times over to be rare. Especially among violent criminals. Many cases of violent offenders are people who have some mental challenges either be it a chemical imbalance, issues from the environment in which they where raised or are currently in and even deeper issues than that.. Drugs dealers, gang members and murder's are not very often rehabilitated. These are the people most likely to commit a violent crime involving guns.

If you're going to give amnesty to people expect your crime rates to go up. Now if you're going to encourage regular citizens to turn in thier guns, I'd give incentives, tickets to sporting events have worked wonders in previous attempts.

I also fear this is a slow push to start to ban certain, or all types of weapons/guns in UN nations.

I know it's your nations personal belief, but rehabilitation has been shown many times over to be rare. Especially among violent criminals. Many cases of violent offenders are people who have some mental challenges either be it a chemical imbalance, issues from the environment in which they where raised or are currently in and even deeper issues than that.. Drugs dealers, gang members and murder's are not very often rehabilitated. These are the people most likely to commit a violent crime involving guns.

If you're going to give amnesty to people expect your crime rates to go up. Now if you're going to encourage regular citizens to turn in thier guns, I'd give incentives, tickets to sporting events have worked wonders in previous attempts.

I also fear this is a slow push to start to ban certain, or all types of weapons/guns in UN nations.

No accurate studies on rehabilitation have ever been conducted in Gruenberg: we kill them far too quickly for any of that nonsense. This is not, though, because we do not believe rehabilitation has no place in any society, though: it's just because we enjoy killing, and believe that for us, punishment is the only suitable method of criminal justice. What we would suggest, then, is that if you believe gun amnesty would increase your crime rates, you do not institute an amnesty. And, although I can't speak for PC in any real sense, he's about the least likely person I can think of to write a gun ban proposal. So I think you're safe on that front too. Taking any proposal is part of a 'slow push', given the fragmented nature of UN membership, both national and legislative, rarely works.

I like the idea of gun amnesty and support this proposal, but i don't really understand the way it's implemented, maybe you will help me to understand.

How many UNGA facilities will be set up by nations?

Maybe my following suggestion will not be relevent, but may i sugest that guns may also be turned to some selected fire department which will agree to be supervized on this topic only by a one and only UNGA facility by nation.

EDIT: with some possible exception where there can be more facilities, in extreme cases, as in RL Rwanda, for ewample

Also, i don't think you will be interested in the following concept, but i would like to propose you:

I was planning to draft a resolution called "RFID in new weapons", i never wrote it, but the basic concept was to implement a hard to remove Radio Frequency IDentification chip in every new weapon manufactured, (RFID chips are really cheap nowadays), then tracability would be easier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

If by hasard, you are interested by this, please feel free to use it.

Also, i don't think you will be interested in the following concept, but i would like to propose you:

I was planning to draft a resolution called "RFID in new weapons", i never wrote it, but the basic concept was to implement a hard to remove Radio Frequency IDentification chip in every new weapon manufactured, (RFID chips are really cheap nowadays), then tracability would be easier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

If by hasard, you are interested by this, please feel free to use it.


This might be a problem for 'Past Tech' nations...

This might be a problem for 'Past Tech' nations...

You right but international trade exist, at least it can be urged;)

:rolleyes:

Maybe we could get back to the relevant discussion? There is nothing in this proposal which prohibits incentivising amnesty. As such, the decision of whether to, say, give free tickets or whatever to those who hand in guns, or not, might be better made at the national level. If there is a 'soft' clause supporting such actions, I would not object, but as much of the appeal of this program should be its flexibility, I can't see forcing a certain mechanical approach as being terribly in keeping with it.

Yes, but the way I read it now, the UN would have full power of decision about whether incentives could be given or not. I would like this option to be explicitly in the hands of the government.

(And yes, I know countries can implement their own programmes without UN supervision. I just see no harm in giving some power to the country in designing the whole scheme.)

Yes, but the way I read it now, the UN would have full power of decision about whether incentives could be given or not. I would like this option to be explicitly in the hands of the government.

(And yes, I know countries can implement their own programmes without UN supervision. I just see no harm in giving some power to the country in designing the whole scheme.)

The UN has to have full power of decision; otherwise, it couldn't be called a UNGA. But, as far as I see, national UNGAs can do whatever they like, up until the UN tells them not to. If they demonstrate the benefits of incentives, then the UNGA central committee would surely not deny that request. Part of the 'imaginary committee' concept has to be that we assume some level of competence. Perhaps something stating that UNGAs can operate, for example, incentive schemes...but in areas where that is shown to be problematic (for example leading to thefts of guns in order to earn more) then I don't see any problem with the UN being able to prohibit such practices. I honestly think your UNGA would already have the right to run an incentive scheme; that the UN would have the power to curtail that is surely only right, if it is to work under the auspices of that UN?

Some suggested changes:


SUPPORTING families and individuals in environments of gun possession--illegal or not--who struggle to leave such environments,

NOTING a gun amnesty with United Nations approval and oversight could be more trusted by citizens than one with local backing, tentatively offering local governments might be motivated in gun policy politically, or even corrupted more easily than international governments,
This is not very clear, starting from tentatively.

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving unwanted guns from citizens, under the following requirements:

a) Citizens may turn in guns only, unloaded and without ammunition on any citizen’s person, and security in UNGA facilities is maintained by UN personnel;

c) Nations may examine all guns collected for forensic evidence, and retain any gun for an indefinite period of time, while investigation of crimes possibly committed with that gun are investigated; [guns don't commit crimes, people do ;)]

d) UN personnel completely and promptly destroy all received guns, except while retained under c), preferably by incineration or severe enough defacement of the gun to assure it can not be repaired without extreme and costly measures;

2.ALLOWS nations to request more than one UNGA, and make any request regarding operations at any UNGA within their national boundaries, but MAINTAINS the right of the UN to deny requests from nations concerning UNGAs, including initial requests for a UNGA;

3.PLACES the whole operation of UNGAs under UN oversight, meaning:

c)Funding of UNGA facilities, non-UN personnel (the UN personnel are funded strictly by the UN), forensic investigation, storage facilities for retained guns, and any other UNGA expenditure is the responsibility of the host nation or the UN or both as determined by agreement between both parties before a UNGA is placed in the host nation;

4. SUPPORTS National gun amnesties that strive for the same goals as UNGAs, and follow the same basic premises.


EDIT: I might have made more changes other than the bold stuff.

This might be a problem for 'Past Tech' nations...

Or for those who don't feel the need to track personal possessions.

Alrighty, this, I think, is the draft with Fonzoland's changes (thanks for these, by the way :)). I'll edit the first post shortly.

The United Nations,

SUPPORTING families and individuals in environments of gun possession--illegal guns or not--who struggle to leave such environments,

RECOGNIZING an increase in personal freedoms and human rights when a citizen is allowed to renege upon gun possession without legal repercussion,

NOTING a gun amnesty with United Nations oversight could be more credible among citizens than one with local backing,

DETERMINGING this added credibility may ensure more rights to citizens to remove themselves from violent lives:

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:

a) Citizens may turn in guns only: unloaded and without ammunition on any citizen’s person, and security at UN facilities is maintained by UN personnel;

b) Citizens who turn in guns may not be prosecuted for the possession of that gun (should possession of that type of gun be illegal);

c) Nations may examine any gun collected for forensic evidence, and retain any gun for an indefinite period of time while investigation of crimes possibly committed with that gun are investigated;

d) UNGA personnel completely and promptly destroys all received guns, except those retained for investigation--preferably by incineration or severe enough defacement of the gun to assure it can not be repaired without extreme and costly measures;

2.ALLOWS for nations to request more than one UNGA for their nations, and make any request regarding operations at one or all UNGAs within their national boundaries, but MAINTAINS the right of the UN to deny requests from nations concerning UNGAs, including initial requests for a UNGA;

3.PLACES the entirety of operations at UNGAs under UN oversight, meaning:

a)The UN may disallow or allow any practices, funding, or persons from the UNGA, exercise jurisdiction over any other matter involving a UNGA, and remove any UNGA at any time and for any reason from any host nation;

b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide not to host a UNGA any longer, at which time the UNGA will close immediately, and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner;

c)Funding of UNGA facilities, non-UN personnel (the UN personnel are funded strictly by the UN), funds for forensic investigation or storage facilities for retained guns, and any other UNGA expenditure is the responsibility of the host nation or the UN or both as determined by agreement between both parties before a UNGA is placed in the host nation;

4. SUPPORTS National gun amnesties that strive for the same goals as UNGAs, and which operate on the same basic premises.

I'm guessing we don't have to ask for gun amnesty's in our countries right?

I'm guessing we don't have to ask for gun amnesty's in our countries right?
Yes, you do have to ask for UN Gun Amnesty (in an RP sense, not here on the forums). And your nation's as free as ever to set up its own.