NationStates Jolt Archive

To any UN delegates out there. Just last night I submitted the Gun Control Compromise Act as a proposal. The proposal has already recieved 8 approvals. Im not complaining but there is another Gun control act on the docket that could end up taking all guns from all citizens and allowing the governments to retain them. This would leave all citizens vulnerable to government tyranny and criminals who get guns via the black market. People would end up being helpless to defend themselves. I propose that all UN delegates look at the Gun Control Compromise Act and approve it as soon as possible. I have tried to make it as reasonnable and fair as possible. Keeping guns away from crimnals and little kids while still allowing hunters and responsible adults the right to carry and use guns for target practice and self defense. I ask all UN delegates to please consider my proposal. In the future, when I am asked to consider a proposal written by one of you, I will do so. After all, one good turn deserves another. I thank you all.

The Democratic Republic of Stephen Foster

It's considered polite to post the text of your proposal, so delegates don't have to go root it out.

Link: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=control

Gun Control Compromise Act
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Relax
Proposed by: Stephen Foster

Description: This resolution is meant to be a fair law that acts as a compromise to the issue of gun control.
RECOGNIZING the fact that kids who play with guns get hurt or killed.

REALIZING that guns are used for protection, hunting, and target practice and that people should be allowed to do so.

UNDERSTANDING that some people use guns for crimes and violence.

PROPOSING that people have the right to defend themselves from harm and death by using guns. People should be allowed to own guns but under certain conditions. First, all citizens must pass a criminal background check. If their record is clean, they may buy a weapon. If their record reveals crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft with a weapon and the like they can not be allowed to own a weapon. Citizens that pass the background check and buys guns, then commit major crimes as listed above are not allowed to own a gun again. Furthermore, all citizens owning a weapon must always lock up their weapon and use safety devices if they have kids of their own or around their house. People who have kids or have kids around that have accidents with guns should be punished under laws that nations see fit. It is every adult's responsibility to keep guns out of their kids hands and to teach kids to be responsible with guns at all times. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. People will also retain the right to carry guns unless prohibited by schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc... Furthermore, adults must pass a firearms safety course to be able to use a gun. Also proposed is a special required school course, similar to drivers education, to teach kids about firearms and how to be safe with them. Students must pass this course to be able to go hunting but must be accompanied by an adult who has passed the firearms safety course.I propose that this proposal be voted into law. People have the right to bear arms, but people must be responsible with them as well.

Initial reaction: wall of text, argh. Break it up a bit.

OOC: and use fewer NRA slogans.

Sorry if you had trouble finding it. Im new to the forum thing so I apologize that you had to find my proposal. I will add the proposal text next time or at least the link. I have broken it up a bit. Thanks for that tidbit.

To any UN delegates out there. Just last night I submitted the Gun Control Compromise Act as a proposal. The proposal has already recieved 8 approvals. Im not complaining but there is another Gun control act on the docket that could end up taking all guns from all citizens and allowing the governments to retain them.

How is this other one doing? Any better than yours is? I would hope that delegates don't support either but if they do and it goes to full vote that members then vote any proposal that would ban guns from citizens of UN nations down.

Dispite the arguement that guns in the wrong hands kill... the key to gun control is to make those who abuse others with them pay for their crimes. I'd rather see this issue of death penity made standard in all UN nations for anyone who uses a gun to kill another person without cause; such as self protection or protection of ones property and family.

Any ban on guns because somebody may get one and use it wrong is not going to stop this as long as there are any guns anywhere for them to get. Criminals don't follow laws that's why they end up being criminals. Also we can't ban everything that ends up being used to kill folks or send folks to some class to learn how to use it..

Shoot your foot off you learn fast not to do it again.. Shoot somebody elses foot off you pay for your actions. Kill them you hang... by a strong rope from a tall tree. Simple method of teaching folks not to abuse guns or any other items that might, when not used right, harm or kill others. Pay or Swing..

Guns only for War
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Baramia
Description: PROPOSING that no person may own a gun - the government has complete control over them. They will only be used or held by men during a war.
NOTING that guns are dangerous and even though there is a very small chance can be fired accidentally.
REALISING that crime would significantly decrease:
1.NOTING that people use guns to threaten people even if they don't actually intend to shoot
2.NOTING that people use guns to kill people with or without a motif.
UNDERSTANDING that people say guns are needed for self-defence, but if no-one possessed a gun, there would be hardly any need for self-defence in the first place.
TELLING the governments of all nations to keep all guns in one secure place and only
PERMITTING their use during warfare.
Approvals: 5 (Faerie-Sprite, Firebert, Kinegland, Carrie land, Lyendoria)


If this is one you are refering to then it not doing as well as yours is..

Um... where exactly is the compromise is this proposal? You appear to only want one particular viewpoint represented. One opinion does not a compromise make.

Gun Control Compromise Act
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Relax
Proposed by: Stephen Foster

Description: This resolution is meant to be a fair law that acts as a compromise to the issue of gun control.
RECOGNIZING the fact that kids who play with guns get hurt or killed.

REALIZING that guns are used for protection, hunting, and target practice and that people should be allowed to do so.

UNDERSTANDING that some people use guns for crimes and violence.

It is certainly true that guns are used to commit crimes and violence and that indeed is the main reason for the existence of guns. The general public should not be allowed to stock themselves up with vast arsenals of weaponary which at a moments notice they can deploy against their fellow citizens. This would lead eventually to anarchy. This indeed is the reason why we have police forces, so that a specific branch of the state can act as a defence and support in crime related matters to its citizenry. Guns are merely a way of killing people, not protecting or even enforcing the law necessrily.

PROPOSING that people have the right to defend themselves from harm and death by using guns. People should be allowed to own guns but under certain conditions. First, all citizens must pass a criminal background check. If their record is clean, they may buy a weapon. If their record reveals crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft with a weapon and the like they can not be allowed to own a weapon. Citizens that pass the background check and buys guns, then commit major crimes as listed above are not allowed to own a gun again.

I note that highway robbery, piracy, terrorism, attempted murder and a whole host of other crimes are not included.

Furthermore, all citizens owning a weapon must always lock up their weapon and use safety devices if they have kids of their own or around their house. People who have kids or have kids around that have accidents with guns should be punished under laws that nations see fit. It is every adult's responsibility to keep guns out of their kids hands and to teach kids to be responsible with guns at all times.

Query: Would you not agree that the presence of dangerous weapons in a household, regardless of whether they are used or not can have a detrimental effect on a child?

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

No, people use guns to kill people. The gun is still responsible to a large degree.

People will also retain the right to carry guns unless prohibited by schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc... Furthermore, adults must pass a firearms safety course to be able to use a gun. Also proposed is a special required school course, similar to drivers education, to teach kids about firearms and how to be safe with them.

Hold on, I thought we were trying to keep guns out of kids hands. How is educating them about firearms going to help?

Second query: What about the question of age limits for gun ownership?

Students must pass this course to be able to go hunting but must be accompanied by an adult who has passed the firearms safety course.I propose that this proposal be voted into law. People have the right to bear arms, but people must be responsible with them as well.

Third query: Why just students?

And as a final point, I note that mental illness was not included under your proposed background checks.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The general public should not be allowed to stock themselves up with vast arsenals of weaponary which at a moments notice they can deploy against their fellow citizens.Is this where we ban knives, sticks, hammers, screwdrivers, chainsaws, power drills, automobiles, forks, heavy purses, and pretty much everything else?

Is this where we ban knives, sticks, hammers, screwdrivers, chainsaws, power drills, automobiles, forks, heavy purses, and pretty much everything else?

Yeah, don't forget sporks.

Pythogria votes against it. Guns are illegal to privately own in my nation.

Pythogria votes against it. Guns are illegal to privately own in my nation.

What about sporks?

Query: Would you not agree that the presence of dangerous weapons in a household, regardless of whether they are used or not can have a detrimental effect on a child?
.
If a child grows up to respect any weapon then most will not abuse them. Most of the time a child shoots his friend with a gun is because he is not aware of the dangers of guns because he is not eductated in their use. As to hide from or tell a young kid not to do something often gives them cause to want to do it, just as not talking with them about it might. They will learn from somebody and that might be the wrong persons.

As far as locking them up in a locked safe or putting trigger locks on them; then not loading them. By the time one gets past this the criminal has killed you raped your wife kicked you dog and taken what he wants and left you all dead. Think of the effort to find, and load a weapon when criminals are assaulting you or your loved ones.

No, people use guns to kill people. The gun is still responsible to a large degree..
Have we got living guns that can now think and act on their own!? When will we be voting to add them to the list of those things that have equal rights with humans? Lay a gun on a table and it will not kill anyone until a person who acts and thinks picks it up and pulls the trigger. Thus don't blame the gun or you need to start looking at knives and any weapon, tool, or thing that might be use to harm another person..

Hold on, I thought we were trying to keep guns out of kids hands. How is educating them about firearms going to help?.
Kids grow up to become adults and the sooner they learn to respect certain things the more likely they are to not abuse them. Thus education must start young and with a prayer it will stay throught their adult life what they learn young. They need to learn as a kid to repect guns and hope it stays with them.

I think the proposal is a compriomise. It allows people to own guns, but forces backround checks and safety measures. Although, I don't think gun control is UN business, so I'm against this resolution, although I won't be to concerned if it passes, as most of it matches my nation's gun control laws anyway.

Either way, I have some complaints before it goes to vote:

Also proposed is a special required school course, similar to drivers education, to teach kids about firearms and how to be safe with them. Students must pass this course to be able to go hunting but must be accompanied by an adult who has passed the firearms safety course.


Well, I like the idea, but I don't think it should be mandatory, as some people have no intention of ever owning a gun, and thus shouldn't have to take the course. As well, some parents see guns as pure evil, and since gun knowledge isn't as important to life as say, SexEd or math, i think parents should be able to pull their kids from the course.

I also have a problem with the fact that last three quarters are one giant text block, re-organized it so it is easier to read, and easier to tell what is a mandate and what is simply a suggestion or strong urge. Resolutions writte like this always lead to tons of loopholes that people can use.

Furthermore, all citizens owning a weapon must always lock up their weapon and use safety devices if they have kids of their own or around their house.

Whenver you write a law or resolution you have to be specific about things. In this case your not very specific about what constitutes a safety device, or where it may be locked up, and it makes no concessions for a gun not being locked up, but being well out of reach of children. I would also make a point that the safety devices thing should not be made into law, but simply be an URGE or such. Remember, make too much of what your right a firm MANDATE and you risk alienating moderate nations. The NatSovs all probably already hate this bill, and the more left wing will want a complete ban, so your audience here is the moderates, so try to walk the line with how much you tell people to do, and how much you tell them they should do.

Ok I admit I probably did not think this proposal through and was too quick to submit it. I have read all of these replies and have been offended by one or two but the rest have been very helpful. I have re-written the proposal and plan on re-proposing it soon. I have made the proposal easier to read and have made it more iron clad as to make sure that no one finds a loop hole. I hope the new proposal is better accepted. I would like to thank everyone who has been kind enough to make suggestions on how to make my proposal better. I would like more suggestions. Does anyone else have any new suggestions to make concerning the content of my proposal? Keep in mind that I have already made vast changes and plan to still make more. However I will still welcome more comments and advice on how to make it better.

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

Commandant Cidolfas Kramer
Commander-in-Chief of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Allow me to translate for those of you who may be wondering what this means. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not be suporting any resolution reguarding a nation's gun laws.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I am finished with the new proposal and have sent it to the proposal list. Here is how it reads. I have taken everyones advice and suggestions to heart and have come up with this... I have called it Gun Control Compromise Act 2.

Description: This resolution is meant to be a fair law that acts as a compromise to the issue of gun control.
RECOGNIZING the fact that kids who play with guns get hurt or killed.

REALIZING that guns are used for protection, hunting, and target practice and that people should be allowed to do so.

UNDERSTANDING that some people use guns for crimes and violence.

PROPOSING that people have the right to defend themselves from harm and death by using guns and should not be prosecuted for proven acts of defense.

FIRST, all citizens, aged 21 or older who wish to own a firearm must pass a criminal background check. If their record is clean, they may buy a weapon. If their record reveals crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft with a weapon, assault with a weapon, attempted murder, robbery with a weapon, and acts of terrorism, they may not own a weapon. Citizens that pass the background check and buy guns, then commit major crimes as listed above are not allowed to own a gun again.

ESTABLISHING that the death penalty be the punishment for the crimes of murder and rape for those who used guns to commit their crimes.

SECOND, all citizens owning a weapon should lock up their weapon or have it well out of reach of children. The use of safety devices such as trigger locks, is strongly recommended. People who have kids or have kids around that have accidents with guns should be punished under laws that nations see fit. It is every adult's responsibility to keep guns out of their kids hands and to teach kids to be responsible with guns at all times.

THIRD, People will also retain the right to carry guns unless prohibited by schools, hospitals, banks, government buildings, and any other institution or building that prohibits the carrying of guns. Adults must pass a firearms safety course to be able to use a gun. Also proposed is a special non-required school course, similar to drivers education, to teach kids about the dangers of firearms and how to be safe with them. All kids must pass this course in addition to a hunters safety course to be allowed to go hunting. Kids who wish to hunt must be accompanied by an adult who has passed the firearms safety course.

ILLEGAL is the gathering of personal arsenals of weapons. No more than 3 rifles (including semi-automatics) and 2 handguns may be kept by any person at any time. Exceptions include registered and licensed historical guns collectors, and museums.

FOURTH, Semi-automatic weapons can be owned by citizens but must be registered at the regional, national, and local level as well as by the gun dealer, and must be inspected every six months by the local authorities to check for changes such as converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons may only be used by the military, federal authorities, state and local police, and SWAT units. Again, exceptions include licensed historical guns collectors and museums which will be inspected every six months by the local authorities.

REQUIRED that every citizen must register their firearm at the time of purchase. Gun dealers must keep records of each and every weapon they sell and must keep every customer's purchase history on record at all times to make sure that no citizens violate number limit of firearms as stated above.

FIFTH, those citizens that use their guns for proven acts of defense shall not be prosecuted. Those who use their guns to kill or rape shall be subject to the death penalty

What about sporks?

Those are allowed.

Well, I like the idea, but I don't think it should be mandatory, as some people have no intention of ever owning a gun, and thus shouldn't have to take the course. As well, some parents see guns as pure evil, and since gun knowledge isn't as important to life as say, SexEd or math, i think parents should be able to pull their kids from the course.

Then this will be the kid that picks that gun up and pulls the trigger because they don't know the dangers of guns. Thus either they shoot themselves or somebody else. As most kids want to know about things and will learn about them one way or other. As with sex education or anything; if the teachers don't know what they are doing then the kids learn wrong. As they find out from people often that know less than they do about it.

As long as any gun is around some kid can find it and use it wrong if not taught to respect them and use them properly. To just ignore the issue opens the door to more kids killing themselves or others because they are kids and want to know WHY!

Even if one lives in an area or group that don't drive cars they still teach their kids about them and the dangers.... or we will see a lot more 'human' roadkill on national highways across UN member nations. So why not teach kids the dangers of guns to include the porper use of them. Then let the kids when they are of age decide if they want to have one. Best to teach them before they shoot themselves or somebody else with one.

I FIRST, all citizens, aged 21 or older who wish to own a firearm must pass a criminal background check.

Drop the age 21 here as many nations draft into military younger than 21, thus they once enter military should be condsidered citizens and thus have the right to own guns..

At age 10 in my nation any person born here has limited rights of citizenship pending completion of national service; thus by age 16 they are a fully active citizen with all rights of such. Our basic education starts at age 5 for all and ends males at 10 and females at 12 then they serve national service until 16..

Thus drop the age... leave that part to individual nations to decide it. based on their considerations for citizenship...

ESTABLISHING that the death penalty be the punishment for the crimes of murder and rape for those who used guns to commit their crimes.

FIFTH, those citizens that use their guns for proven acts of defense shall not be prosecuted. Those who use their guns to kill or rape shall be subject to the death penalty


Even though we like these parts; but we must oppose it because it requires all nations to use the death penalty as punishment for this type crime when they may be fully opposed to using it for any crime. Thus we must respect their rights to punish their criminals as they see fit to do and not impose on them to use a good rope and tall tree.. or other form of death penalty.

Is this where we ban knives, sticks, hammers, screwdrivers, chainsaws, power drills, automobiles, forks, heavy purses, and pretty much everything else?

Last time I checked, guns don't do much else beyond shooting people. Everything else does something useful beyond being a potential lethal tool.

Last time I checked, guns don't do much else beyond shooting people.

Have you never heard of their use for protection from dangerous wild animals, or in hunting animals for food?!?

Last time I checked, guns don't do much else beyond shooting people. Everything else does something useful beyond being a potential lethal tool.


True their intent is good but if abused they become a weapon just like any item might. You would teach a kid to use an ax to cut wood safely and properly but not teach them to use a gun properly and safely thus they have to 'play' with it to learn how to use it. Thus abuse it and get injured or killed by it.. be it gun, knife, toothpick, or other item that one might use without knowing how to properly do so.

Again as long as their is a gun around you can only protect people from them if you teach them to respect them and should they chose to use them do it right.

Just a bit of a rundown of possible opposition to this proposal as written.

Those that oppose guns and/or a "right" to bear arms, against
Those that oppose the death penalty and the sneaky way this proposal is trying to force it on all nations, against.
Those that don't want the UN meddling in their justice system at all, against.
Those that don't feel gun control is a UN problem, against.
Nat Sovers, possibly against.
Those that don't believe in vigilante "justice" possibly against.
The UN fluffies, possibly against.

Not sure who that leaves to be honest, though I'm sure there are some people out there who will support this as written. Doubt there will be enough to get it passed however.

Perhaps if you changed this to an "encourages" nations to allow citizens to have guns, and "urged" education ect, not to mention dropping the whole death penalty thing altogether, it may attract enough support to get it passed. I'll happily join those who won't support this at all as written now.

Have you never heard of their use for protection from dangerous wild animals, or in hunting animals for food?!?Not many dangerous wild animals in heavily developed parts, so the idea that everybody living in suburbs should have a weapon doesn’t hold water. Rural areas are a different matter, but I don’t hear of dangerous wild animals often attacking people.

<cue RP/Godmod examples of nations characters once being attacked by a rabid elk/giraffe/other generic animal.>

Secondly, not many cultures hunt for food using guns. Most are indigenous cultures, who use indigenous methods, such as archery. Sure, some people go hunting for ducks, or pheasants or other generic animals, but that is not for food – it’s for sport first and foremost. Plus if we let any Tom, Dick, Harry or Don (Rumsfeld) run around hunting animals, we have all sorts of potential for mishaps.

Like how I inserted a RL reference so subtly there? ;)

Of course, I should have said shooting things rather than people, but the case is still not clear. Hammers (and the other items listed) do other stuff than inflict injury. Guns are still a lethal tool (on animals or other people). Hammers and axes etc are tools that do something beyond killing things.

True their intent is good but if abused they become a weapon just like any item might. You would teach a kid to use an ax to cut wood safely and properly but not teach them to use a gun properly and safely thus they have to 'play' with it to learn how to use it.Last time I checked, a gun does not do anything useful apart from make it easier to hurt things, and clay pigeon shooting. An axe is useful for something beyond hurting things. Big difference.Thus abuse it and get injured or killed by it.. be it gun, knife, toothpick, or other item that one might use without knowing how to properly do so. As far as I can understand, using a gun to injure or kill is not abuse, it’s using it for it’s job. It’s what it is meant to do. Again as long as their is a gun around….There is a patently obvious solution to prevent them being around…. …you can only protect people from them if you teach them to respect them and should they chose to use them do it right.So that other people or things get hurt instead. :roll:

I’m not saying guns should be banned outright – but it would be nice if people stopped recycling NRA dogma.

A gun is an inanimate object. You cannot judge the legality of an object based on its 'intent': it has no intent. It is a lump of metal.

And further, basing all this on 'use' is silly. Why would someone in a developed area need an axe? Do much logging in the city centre?

Not many dangerous wild animals in heavily developed parts, so the idea that everybody living in suburbs should have a weapon doesn’t hold water. Rural areas are a different matter, but I don’t hear of dangerous wild animals often attacking people.

<cue RP/Godmod examples of nations characters once being attacked by a rabid elk/giraffe/other generic animal.>

OOC: Hey, it's already in one of the daily issues! ;)

A gun is an inanimate object. You cannot judge the legality of an object based on its 'intent': it has no intent. It is a lump of metal.Last time I checked, a lump of metal cannot be considered a weapon that discharges a missile at high velocity. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+gun&meta=)

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11074406/Titanium_Scrap.summ.jpg does not equal http://www.bucklesofestes.com/images/M156_gun.jpg

(Of course it could be still be a lethal weapon if it was heavy enough – just not a very good one. I can’t imagine people wanting to kill other people with lumps of metal. Can you imagine street gangs doing drive-by shootings with lumps of metal as pictured above? It doesn’t do the job.)And further, basing all this on 'use' is silly.Basing it on “use” is the only way to do this. Do you get a hammer to use it as a weapon that discharges a missile at high velocity (to cause pain - probably at a person, but maybe at an animal)? No, you buy a gun. You buy a hammer to hammer things (mainly nails, but obviously the potential for peoples skulls is there).Why would someone in a developed area need an axe? Do much logging in the city centre?Probably not, but that is beside the point. They might want to cut down their tree in their back garden, for all I know. Next time I see someone buying an axe, I shall ask them.

I think it needs some minor changes but in general I tend to like it with three exceptions. I wil quote the parts I am concerned about and the reasons why I am concerned.

ESTABLISHING that the death penalty be the punishment for the crimes of murder and rape for those who used guns to commit their crimes.

While I want to avoid the deeper question of the death penalty in general, I think there is a major problem of the point of no return dilemma. Suppose you use a gun to rob a bank. Things get strange, as things often do and you shoot someone. That's murder. You have a death sentence over you now. guess what? You now have a free card to do practically everything because you already have the maximum sentence that one can receive ... death. Soon you start killing everyone in order not to get caught. (Kill or be killed right?)

And frankly I can't see any difference between a rape at gunpoint and a rape at knifepoint. They are both equally horrible.


ILLEGAL is the gathering of personal arsenals of weapons. No more than 3 rifles (including semi-automatics) and 2 handguns may be kept by any person at any time. Exceptions include registered and licensed historical guns collectors, and museums.

I have a minor nit pick. What about those people who like to collect guns for a variety of collector's reasons that might not strictly classified as historical? For example suppose a gun manufacturer comes out with an improved shotgun and the collector is interested in getting one of the first production runs (with very low serial numbers) because he thinks its vaule is going to be significantly higher in twenty or thirty years? (One major reason why people collect things.) Collectors in general are much safer than the average gun owner because they invest more money keeping their investment secure.

FOURTH, Semi-automatic weapons can be owned by citizens but must be registered at the regional, national, and local level as well as by the gun dealer, and must be inspected every six months by the local authorities to check for changes such as converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons may only be used by the military, federal authorities, state and local police, and SWAT units. Again, exceptions include licensed historical guns collectors and museums which will be inspected every six months by the local authorities.

Inspections every six months for semi-automatic weapons seems a bit harsh. One might wonder why one needs a semi-automatic weapon. Bear hunting practically requires it. Yes hunting game that runs away when shot probably doesn't, but hunting game that might be so annoyed at being shot as to attack the shooter practically requires it for safety reasons. It seems unfair to simply assume that a bear hunter is a potential criminial.

--snip--
A gun, lying on a desk, is a set of parts, composed of metal. Nothing more. It can be used to fire a round, yes. So? A knife can be used to stab someone. Until it does such, it's not dangerous.

Basing it on “use” is the only way to do this. Do you get a hammer to use it as a weapon that discharges a missile at high velocity (to cause pain - probably at a person, but maybe at an animal)? No, you buy a gun. You buy a hammer to hammer things (mainly nails, but obviously the potential for peoples skulls is there).
If I wanted to rape someone, I would buy a hammer, not a gun.

Probably not, but that is beside the point. They might want to cut down their tree in their back garden, for all I know. Next time I see someone buying an axe, I shall ask them.
But you're saying it's fine for people to buy axes, knives, hammers etc., even if they're not going to saw wood, hammer nails, make food, etc., but are in fact going to kill people, because the weapons they use have other uses, whereas because you're not interested in the non-lethal applications of guns, they should be banned. That makes absolutely no sense whatsover.

All of which boils down to: what you are saying is "violent crime" is bad. Yes, it is. It is bad when someone shoots someone; it is bad when someone stabs someone; it is bad when someone bludgeons someone. Different nations have different approaches to tackling violent crime, and gun control is certainly not suitable for international legislation.

The government of St Edmund believes that this is a matter that should properly be left for national governments to decide about separately rather than through the UN, because of its complicated & controversial nature as well as on the grounds of National Sovereignty, and would therefore almost certainly vote 'AGAINST' in the fairly unlikely event of it reaching the General Assembly despite the fact that in many respects it's quite close to our existing national legislation on the matter. However we've decided to favour you with some more-detailed comments on this proposal's text anyway...


RECOGNIZING the fact that kids who play with guns get hurt or killed.

Shouldn't that say either "some kids" or "may get hurt or killed", or did you actually mean to imply a 100% probability of that harm?

REALIZING that guns are used for protection, hunting, and target practice and that people should be allowed to do so.

"can be used"

PROPOSING that people have the right to defend themselves from harm and death by using guns and should not be prosecuted for proven acts of defense.

Except when they're criminals "defending" themselves against the forces of law & order, or where this constituted a seriously disproportionate response to the actual threat...

FIRST, all citizens, aged 21 or older who wish to own a firearm must pass a criminal background check. If their record is clean, they may buy a weapon. If their record reveals crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft with a weapon, assault with a weapon, attempted murder, robbery with a weapon, and acts of terrorism, they may not own a weapon. Citizens that pass the background check and buy guns, then commit major crimes as listed above are not allowed to own a gun again.

Nations differ too widely for defining a single age-threshhold to be really appropriate: Maybe you could try tying it into the 'age of majority', plus or minus up to some specified proportion of that age, at the relevant national government's discretion? Shouldn't mental illness also be a possible disqualifying situation? I'd suggets leaving the list of disqualifying crimes, in both cases, for the relevant national government's to define.

ESTABLISHING that the death penalty be the punishment for the crimes of murder and rape for those who used guns to commit their crimes.

Okay by us, but this might cost you a few other votes.

SECOND, all citizens owning a weapon should lock up their weapon

when it isn't either in use or being worked on...

or have it well out of reach of children.

except when using it to defend those children against attack...

THIRD, People will also retain the right to carry guns unless prohibited by schools, hospitals, banks, government buildings, and any other institution or building that prohibits the carrying of guns.

You've left a major loophole for the anti-gun people to exploit here: Add "on their own premises", or any one such establishment could impose a national ban!

Adults must pass a firearms safety course to be able to use a gun. Also proposed is a special non-required school course, similar to drivers education, to teach kids about the dangers of firearms and how to be safe with them.

Looking at RL rules, at least in the UK, you might want to have separate courses for 'black powder' & 'modern' weapons.

All kids must pass this course in addition to a hunters safety course to be allowed to go hunting. Kids who wish to hunt must be accompanied by an adult who has passed the firearms safety course.

Okay by us, but possibly incompatible with the earlier clause about keeping guns away from them?

ILLEGAL is the gathering of personal arsenals of weapons. No more than 3 rifles (including semi-automatics) and 2 handguns may be kept by any person at any time. Exceptions include registered and licensed historical guns collectors, and museums.

You also need exceptions for [legal] gun-dealers, gunsmiths & followers of related trades... and for the 'armourers' of any security firms whose members are allowed to carry guns on duty. Maybe others too, but I'll have to think about that. Oh, and is there any limit on shotguns -- and any other non-rifled types of 'long' guns that might be around -- were you simply ruling those out altogether?
Some competitive target shooters might "need" more guns, for use at different ranges [in both senses of that word] or in different disciplines.

REQUIRED that every citizen must register their firearm at the time of purchase.

Inheritance, gifts, wartime souvenirs?

FIFTH, those citizens that use their guns for proven acts of defense shall not be prosecuted. Those who use their guns to kill or rape shall be subject to the death penalty

See my comment about the earlier 'defence' clause. Also, I'd suggest changing "kill" to "commit murder" so that people don't get executed for tragic accidents (and also because some nations might want to allow legalised duels...).

But you're saying it's fine for people to buy axes, knives, hammers etc., even if they're not going to saw wood, hammer nails, make food, etc., but are in fact going to kill people, because the weapons they use have other uses, whereas because you're not interested in the non-lethal applications of guns, they should be banned. That makes absolutely no sense whatsover.Is there a guaranteed non-lethal application of guns? That would need to be considered. Rubber bullets etc would need to be considered.The problem is the non-lethal applications of guns are not generally the main reasons guns are brought. Guns are brought to hurt things. They are designed to launch bullets at people and animals. Hammers are designed to hammer things. Hammers are probably not the best example given their historic role as weapons, but I digress.

I like the first definition of hammer (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Ahammer&meta=) – quite apt for this discussion :)All of which boils down to: what you are saying is "violent crime" is bad. Yes, it is. It is bad when someone shoots someone; it is bad when someone stabs someone; it is bad when someone bludgeons someone. Different nations have different approaches to tackling violent crime, and gun control is certainly not suitable for international legislation.Which is why I would oppose this legislation. See? I’m not entirely lost to the cause of NatSov :D

I think there is some scope for gun control in the international arena, I’m not sure how.

Is there a guaranteed non-lethal application of guns? That would need to be considered. Rubber bullets etc would need to be considered.The problem is the non-lethal applications of guns are not generally the main reasons guns are brought. Guns are brought to hurt things. They are designed to launch bullets at people and animals. Hammers are designed to hammer things. Hammers are probably not the best example given their historic role as weapons, but I digress.
If I buy a hammer to kill someone, it is no better than buying a gun to kill someone. Again, generalising about intent has little effect on practical law and order.

I think there is some scope for gun control in the international arena, I’m not sure how.
Things I could think of:
1. Industrial standards for gun manufacturing.
2. Free trade agreement in small arms.
3. International research in various aspects of ballistics, medicine, criminology, etc.

I should think there are more. I do consider the arms trade worthy of UN attention - so long as that attention promotes it.

Is this where we ban knives, sticks, hammers, screwdrivers, chainsaws, power drills, automobiles, forks, heavy purses, and pretty much everything else?

In answer I would say that by 'weaponry' I refer to objects manufactured with the specific intent of inflicting serious bodily harm or leading to death if used against another individual.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

In answer I would say that by 'weaponry' I refer to objects manufactured with the specific intent of inflicting serious bodily harm or leading to death if used against another individual.
Phew. So we get to keep our shotguns, target pistols and hunting rifles.

Phew. So we get to keep our shotguns, target pistols and hunting rifles.

Not to mention our longbows and crossbows.

Phew. So we get to keep our shotguns, target pistols and hunting rifles.

I would have to conceed that yes, under the definition you probably would be able to. It is something of a gray area.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I would have to conceed that yes, under the definition you probably would be able to. It is something of a gray area.
Which is why the UN shouldn't be legislating on it.

OOC: Compadria, 'gray'? Ugh! Smack smack, don't say the Yanks have got you too!

Which is why the UN shouldn't be legislating on it.

OOC: Compadria, 'gray'? Ugh! Smack smack, don't say the Yanks have got you too!

I'd agree with you on your first point, which pains me deeply (as a U.N. Federalist) to say so.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

OOC: I thought the spellings were that you said "grey" for the colour and "gray" for names and for adjective use. I may be wrong.

Things I could think of:
1. Industrial standards for gun manufacturing.
2. Free trade agreement in small arms.
3. International research in various aspects of ballistics, medicine, criminology, etc.

4. International sales only allowed via checked & responsible dealers?

OOC: Compadria, 'gray'? Ugh! Smack smack, don't say the Yanks have got you too!


OOC: Consider it a trade. I spell it "grey." But then, to the great irritation and confusion of many here, I also use the "-ise" suffix, instead of "-ize," and use words like "colour" and "favour." ;)

OOC: Consider it a trade. I spell it "grey." But then, to the great irritation and confusion of many here, I also use the "-ise" suffix, instead of "-ize," and use words like "colour" and "favour." ;)

OOC: Ah, "-ise", such a lovely suffix and so little utilised. You're from Massachusetts aren't you? Is it the norm there or is this just a personal variation?

OOC: Ah, "-ise", such a lovely suffix and so little utilised. You're from Massachusetts aren't you? Is it the norm there or is this just a personal variation?

OOC: Personal. I live in Massachusetts, yes. Using the "z" is the norm here, as it is throughout the US. I read too much British literature growing up, though. If you're ever in chat, you'll find I use a lot of British expressions as well.

In answer I would say that by 'weaponry' I refer to objects manufactured with the specific intent of inflicting serious bodily harm or leading to death if used against another individual.That's a poor definition. A sledgehammer will "lead to death if used against another individual". As will any number of inocuous items. Now, I'm sure children around the world will be thrilled that all pianos will be destroyed as their wires can be used as garottes (which will "lead to death if used against another individual"), but this definition is just silly.

That's a poor definition. A sledgehammer will "lead to death if used against another individual". As will any number of inocuous items. Now, I'm sure children around the world will be thrilled that all pianos will be destroyed as their wires can be used as garottes (which will "lead to death if used against another individual"), but this definition is just silly.

Pianos have also been known to fall from the sky. It's true. I've seen it happen in tons of cartoons. :p

That's a poor definition. A sledgehammer will "lead to death if used against another individual". As will any number of inocuous items. Now, I'm sure children around the world will be thrilled that all pianos will be destroyed as their wires can be used as garottes (which will "lead to death if used against another individual"), but this definition is just silly.

I didn't claim the definition was perfect. As for the piano business, I would have to say, yes, we shoulde burn all pianos! And all string instruments!:)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Pianos have also been known to fall from the sky. It's true. I've seen it happen in tons of cartoons. :pOoo... good point. We must also outlaw anvils and safes!

And strange, trapezoidal weights that serve no purpose aside from announcing how heavy they are.

Ooo... good point. We must also outlaw anvils and safes!

And strange, trapezoidal weights that serve no purpose aside from announcing how heavy they are.

Yes! YES!

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/compdiff/16tonwei.jpg

That's a poor definition. A sledgehammer will "lead to death if used against another individual". As will any number of inocuous items. Now, I'm sure children around the world will be thrilled that all pianos will be destroyed as their wires can be used as garottes (which will "lead to death if used against another individual"), but this definition is just silly.

For fairness, Compadria used the expression "manufactured with the specific intent," not "with potential for use."

For fairness, Compadria used the expression "manufactured with the specific intent," not "with potential for use."All depends on how your break down the clauses around the word "or". It could be interpreted as:

Made with the specific intent to: inflict serious bodily harm or death

vs.

Made with the specific intent to inflict harm. Or items that will lead to death.

I simply chose to use the second interpretation.

Edit:
<image>I feel deeper in debt already.

snip
True.

Anyway, interpreting 'weapons' as Compadria intended to define them, I believe a very reasonable argument can be made for legal restrictions. But those restrictions clearly do not belong at the international level.

I feel deeper in debt already.

Someday, I will come to you for a favah...

/Godfather

;)

All depends on how your break down the clauses around the word "or". It could be interpreted as:

Made with the specific intent to: inflict serious bodily harm or death

vs.

Made with the specific intent to inflict harm. Or items that will lead to death.

I simply chose to use the second interpretation.

Edit:
I feel deeper in debt already.

I intended it to refer to objects covered by the first interpretation, not the second, though I can see where confusion arose.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Noting these lines in the proposal;
"ESTABLISHING that the death penalty be the punishment for the crimes of murder and rape for those who used guns to commit their crimes."
""

comparing it with the text of UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #103, Right to Refuse Extradition;
"AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

[b]AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders"

I would consider this proposal to be in the wrong category based on that it will require each memberstate to enact the death penalty, even if the memberstate is firmly against said punishment.

Not many dangerous wild animals in heavily developed parts,.

I would differ with you on this point about dangerous wild animals in heavily populatate areas. They eventualy are called CRIMINALS... after they take a child rape it and kill it or commit some CRIMINAL act. Humans are animals and not all are as tame as one might think humans to be... They will if guns are banned have them while others become victums because these wild animals don't care who they assault, rape, or kill..

Laugh though you might at the thought of dangerous animals in heavily developed areas but when you start getting wild dogs mating with your national animals resulting in death and destruction to people and farm animals you will think otherwise I tell you. It happened to us in Tzorsland and our military is still working on new and exciting ways to incorporate them into the military.

REQUIRED that every citizen must register their firearm at the time of purchase. Gun dealers must keep records of each and every weapon they sell and must keep every customer's purchase history on record at all times to make sure that no citizens violate number limit of firearms as stated above.


Gun registry (Gun re-j-is-tree): A beuracraticially bloated, money sucking, Big Brotharian piece of legislation.

The largest probelm I have with any form of gun registry, by far, is that it is useless. Be honest, any criminal dumb enough to use a registered gun will likely leave a ton of other evidence behind anyway, and all the smart criminals, or even sub-average criminals will just use non-registered guns; or worse, steal a registered gun and frame an innocent person for the crime, slowing down the investigation, and possibly leading to the unfair incarceration of that person. Add on that it costs a ton of money, a majority of people will refuse to register their guns, or forget, or not be able to afford to, leaving tons of people fined and/or arrests clogging the justice system.

I would differ with you on this point about dangerous wild animals in heavily populatate areas. They eventualy are called CRIMINALS... after they take a child rape it and kill it or commit some CRIMINAL act. Humans are animals and not all are as tame as one might think humans to be... They will if guns are banned have them while others become victums because these wild animals don't care who they assault, rape, or kill..1. Don't quote me out of context.
2. Human beings, no matter how homicidal or psychopathic they are, are not wild animals (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Wild+animal&meta=)
3. even if you are going to try and claim criminals are wild animals – what you need to do is tame ( http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3A+Tame&meta=) them – that is, to correct by punishment or discipline.
4. Making guns publicly available just means its easier for criminals to get to them, just makes it easier for normal people to use them (possibly making them criminals in the process). Just means your police are fighting against normal people every time a domestic pops up, every time a parking attendant slaps a ticket on a car. Every time a minor offence gets horribly exaggerated by people carrying small arms.
5. Just because your border control is too poor to be able to control the influx of weapons into your state, does not mean we all do.
6. Quit spouting NRA dogma.

Laugh though you might at the thought of dangerous animals in heavily developed areas but when you start getting wild dogs mating with your national animals resulting in death and destruction to people and farm animals you will think otherwise I tell you. It happened to us in Tzorsland and our military is still working on new and exciting ways to incorporate them into the military.

1. Wild dogs can’t mate with owls. Too many feathers
2. Farm animals live in farms – which are generally located in rural areas. Which is what I recognised originally without being quoted out of context by certain people.
3. I must be psychic. I thought someone would godmod.

4. Making guns publicly available just means its easier for criminals to get to them

OOC: Now consider the RL UK: Gun laws have been tightened considerably during the past decade, to such an extent that our Olympic handgun-marksmanship contenders have to go abroad to practice... but the use of illegally-held firearms by criminals has increased considerably.

1. Wild dogs can’t mate with owls. Too many feathers

3. I must be psychic. I thought someone would godmod.

OOC: It's possible in one of the daily issues, actually...