NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's about time someone seriously instituted a law about gun control that seriosly gives the issue credit. There has not been a single gun control law passed in the history of the UN! So I proposed one that I think is reasonable. Any comments? (Feel free to approve it:)

Here it is:

//In light of growing crime and dangerous circumstance,

Understanding the need for safe handling of arms,

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions,

It will be necessary that individuals can have power over the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence.

The rights granted in "protective justice" are as follows:

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of arms in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household.

2)The granted "arms" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household.

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incedent including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).//

I think this is too micromanaging. And the absence of a particular category in the annals of the UN is not in itself an argument for its inclusion.

That said, Gruenberg might support some general "Right to Bear Arms", so long as it was worded:
1. In a sovereignty-friendly way (which this is not);
2. In a way to annoy the liberals.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Former Chair, Gruenberger Rifle Association

This isn't sovereignty friendly because it isn't meant to be a catch-all guns are cool thing. I personally own a gun and I would hate to have to use it on someone, but this would let me do that if i needed to. And as far as ticking off liberals, i don't disagree with you there...:mp5: :)

That said, Gruenberg might support some general "Right to Bear Arms", so long as it was wordedI might support such a proposal, if it made provisions for the right to arm bears.

Old joke.

I personally would like the U.N. to restrict gun ownership to those where it's an essential part of their job (i.e. army, police, etc). Yet I know that that hasn't got a snowball's hope in hell of happening, so I'll settle for a good compromise any day. Let's take a look at this proposal then.

So gun-ownership so long as it's on your property and is meant in self-defence is fine. That seems a tad too specific, even for my liking. Shouldn't a gun control category have a somewhat wider scope?

And Gruenberg:

2. In a way to annoy the liberals.

Annoy? Is that all? What happened to the thunderous tirades of Ambassador Bausch, the decrying of liberals and fluffies as sub-human scum (or was that just the citizens of Gurglestan). Regardless, I fear you're becoming a soft touch on this sort of thing...

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I have a few suggestions. I'm not sure if they'll be enough, but it can't hurt too much to try.

I think it's about time someone seriously instituted a law about gun control that seriosly gives the issue credit. There has not been a single gun control law passed in the history of the UN! So I proposed one that I think is reasonable. Any comments? (Feel free to approve it:)

Here it is:

//In light of growing crime and dangerous circumstance,

Not all nations have growing crime rates. The crime rate in Kivisto has barely budged over the "None At All" mark for quite a while. This could be rephrased to something like:

In light of the growing crime rates and dangerous circumstances in many nations.

Understanding the need for safe handling of arms,

What about legs? I know it sounds ridiculous, but any gun proposal that we don't like we will loophole our way through. This refers to arms, but never defines what they are. It's fairly common sense, but it needs to be explicit.

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions,

Noble enough.

It will be necessary that individuals can have power over the corrupt

By granting individuals power over the corrupt, we simply grant said individuals the temptation to become corrupt themselves. Role-reversal at its finest.

and the followers of corrupt law

It is difficult to pass law that allows people power over those who enforce the law. Who gets to decide who the corrupt are, anyways?

when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such

How does one become qualified to do such and who will recognize such qualifications? Hopefully not those followers of corrupt law that were mentioned.

and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence.

Wordy, but I guess it works.

The rights granted in "protective justice" are as follows:

This works, but could be replaced with something like:

The UN MANDATES.

Simply that we've become used to seeing things in a certain format type, and it always flows smoother when we see things in such a fashion.

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of arms in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household.

This actually clears up one or two of the issues from above, though it still leaves the arm/leg thing.

2)The granted "arms" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household.

Throws a bit of a monkeywrench into the arm/leg loophole, but (ignoring that) is fairly reasonable. Further comments to follow.

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

This clause I really like.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incedent including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).//

Avoiding conflict of interest is good.

All that said, I am minorly concerned about the wording of the clause limiting the use of granted arms outside of the home. Would this mean that if I used my hunting rifle to protect my home from thieves that I would no longer be able to use it to go hunting, as that would be taking said arms away from the protected dwelling and using it outside of said boundaries?

Your intent is fairly clear and fairly sound. People should be able to use guns to protect their place of residence and property. In fact, this is one of the best written proposals for such that I have seen. It still needs a bit of work, but I think you're on the right track. There will be some that will say that this infringes on their National Sovereignty and interferes with their own gun legislation. Perhaps they're right. I must admit that such thought occured to me as I read through this proposal. For myself, I'm a big fan of letting the people have guns, though.

Thanks for the tips. I really appreciate it. I needed to have someone analize it in a fairminded way. So here's my revision (any more comments are still welcome:D):

//In light of the growing crime rates and dangerous circumstances in many nations,

Understanding the need for safe handling of armaments and weaponry,

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions,

It will be necessary that individuals can sustain themselves against the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence; all of which will be examined in its following.

UN MANDATES that "protective justice" is as follows:

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of armaments in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household, as judged by following trial of all involved parties in the incident.

2)The granted "armaments" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household, if the protecting party is to be defended by this herestated law (Protection of Legal Residency).

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

3A)In this time of legal determination, both parties must be subject to the same terms of pre-sentencing, including, but not limited to, temporary imprisonment or any various directions of questioning.

3B)Fines may not be imposed on either party until the termination of the trial wherein all parties are found guilty or innocent through due process.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incedent including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).//


Sooooo...How d'ya like them apples? I figured that clears up where these arms can be used, but it still leaves the question on my mind of how these arms are obtained. And as for some countries complaining about sovereignty, a country is only as powerful as its citizens are, for that is where the body of the law and institution is derived.

Thanks for the tips. I really appreciate it. I needed to have someone analize it in a fairminded way. So here's my revision (any more comments are still welcome:D):

//In light of the growing crime rates and dangerous circumstances in many nations,

Understanding the need for safe handling of armaments and weaponry,

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions,

It will be necessary that individuals can sustain themselves against the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence; all of which will be examined in its following.

UN MANDATES that "protective justice" is as follows:

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of armaments in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household, as judged by following trial of all involved parties in the incident.

2)The granted "armaments" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household, if the protecting party is to be defended by this herestated law (Protection of Legal Residency).

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

3A)In this time of legal determination, both parties must be subject to the same terms of pre-sentencing, including, but not limited to, temporary imprisonment or any various directions of questioning.

3B)Fines may not be imposed on either party until the termination of the trial wherein all parties are found guilty or innocent through due process.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incedent including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).//


Sooooo...How d'ya like them apples? I figured that clears up where these arms can be used, but it still leaves the question on my mind of how these arms are obtained. And as for some countries complaining about sovereignty, a country is only as powerful as its citizens are, for that is where the body of the law and institution is derived.

Thanks for the tips. I really appreciate it. I needed to have someone analize it in a fairminded way. So here's my revision (any more comments are still welcome:D):

//In light of the growing crime rates and dangerous circumstances in many nations,

Understanding the need for safe handling of armaments and weaponry,

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions,

It will be necessary that individuals can sustain themselves against the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence; all of which will be examined in its following.

UN MANDATES that "protective justice" is as follows:

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of armaments in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household, as judged by following trial of all involved parties in the incident.

2)The granted "armaments" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household, if the protecting party is to be defended by this herestated law (Protection of Legal Residency).

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

3A)In this time of legal determination, both parties must be subject to the same terms of pre-sentencing, including, but not limited to, temporary imprisonment or any various directions of questioning.

3B)Fines may not be imposed on either party until the termination of the trial wherein all parties are found guilty or innocent through due process.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incedent including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).//


Sooooo...How d'ya like them apples? I figured that clears up where these arms can be used, but it still leaves the question on my mind of how these arms are obtained. And as for some countries complaining about sovereignty, a country is only as powerful as its citizens are, for that is where the body of the law and institution is derived.

As a member of the U.N., I believe it is necessary for the Civilians of any nation to have the ability to protect themselves from any impending harm, however these rules should not be vauge, nor leave any room for misinterpretation. I believe these rules should be harsh, and very concise.

I believe that every owner of a weapon should:

1. Have a psychological overview on each respective person.

2. Hold a license, tied to each respective weapon. This shall include information regarding the manufacturer. (This should also include a mandatory "send in" requesting the "arm")


I believe that weapons should not play any part politically or ecenomically within my nation. I suggest others take suit. Although this in itself is a small affair, the military-industrial complex is a bane that will in time afflict all nations, and one must decide whether it is in the interests for "protection." I would emphasize my worries regarding this issue however, now is not the appropiate occasion.

Sorry for dragging this on.

Sincerely,
Musiquane

Thanks for the idea, but could you explain how the industry and policies would be so negatively affected so immediately? It seems to me that this has the required provisions to keep from legalising violent force (which is NOT included in the statement to be an aggressive force in the terms of interboudary affronts).

Businesses would probably know how to escalate things, i agree, but in the nature of business wanting to seize an oppurtunity, not because of the nature of the law. It is well protected in that right.

I think you have something good going with some registration, though I think that gun control is for wimps and communists:eek:

I might need to institute a registration policy....



Anyone's tips on a policy like that?:confused:

I must admit that the original proposal had me a fair bit confused as to why the UN would feel it necessary to control other people's arms. Surely each person, having been born with at least one set of their own, would know how to use them, after all.

On further inspection, though, I see that you meant to imply weaponry and such. In this case I would like to ask whether you simply mean manmade weaponry, or naturally-given defenses as well, such as very big claws and teeth, being as those things comprise much of our "weaponry" in Lycanthropa.

A simple sentence will suffice and help me decide whether I am for helping you with this proposal or intending to send it to be used as fertilizer in our scrapeberry fields.

Regards,
Mephi, High Clawlord

I might support such a proposal, if it made provisions for the right to arm bears.

Old joke.

Not-so-old nation... (http://www.nationstates.net/bears_armed)

From what I am reading you are allowing guns to be held by home-owners if so I hate this resolution. I don't want my citizens to have guns and should have that choice

I might support such a proposal, if it made provisions for the right to arm bears.

Old joke.
And I might support it if it made provisions to allow us to wear short sleeved shirts.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

From what I am reading you are allowing guns to be held by home-owners if so I hate this resolution. I don't want my citizens to have guns and should have that choice

That's because your a heartless communist. Didn't you read posts other than the first one I put? Here's the National Sovereignty/Individual Sovereignty bit:

They are the same thing

Why?

Because the government is only as powerful as its citizens. The government needs the support of a body of people because the collective will of the people empowers it. But if they collectively will against it, you have no power!

U r a $t00pid 1ib3r@l !!! n0 1 w@nts t0 @ppr0v3 ur 1ib3r@l laws! 1 r CONSERVATIVE !!!!!!!:upyours:

And I might support it if it made provisions to allow us to wear short sleeved shirts.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Nope, no bare arms for you.;)

That's because your a heartless communist. Didn't you read posts other than the first one I put? Here's the National Sovereignty/Individual Sovereignty bit:

They are the same thing

Why?

Because the government is only as powerful as its citizens. The government needs the support of a body of people because the collective will of the people empowers it. But if they collectively will against it, you have no power!

U r a $t00pid 1ib3r@l !!! n0 1 w@nts t0 @ppr0v3 ur 1ib3r@l laws! 1 r CONSERVATIVE !!!!!!!:upyours:

I agree that citizens should have weaponry, and I allow my citizens to do so well knowing that they may overthrow my government one day. However that is how I am keeping this government "safe", by having it "refresh" it's course when the time is needed. However, I believe that my country would not need such drastic measures.

Opposed: If anybody within our nation is charged with shooting at government employees then they will be tried (fairly, as is already guaranteed by existing resolutions anyway) by our own law-courts rather than by foreign ones...

Opposed: If anybody within our nation is charged with shooting at government employees then they will be tried (fairly, as is already guaranteed by existing resolutions anyway) by our own law-courts rather than by foreign ones...

But my point is this: How can you absolutely garauntee, above reproach, that it will be fair? Well wait... You may have something going... What if it complied with local law, but the deliberation from higher courts could be requested all the same? I think that will bode well in most sovereigntists' minds.

But my point is this: How can you absolutely garauntee, above reproach, that it will be fair? Well wait... You may have something going... What if it complied with local law, but the deliberation from higher courts could be requested all the same? I think that will bode well in most sovereigntists' minds.

How can you absolutely guarantee, above reproach, that whatever court would get used instead of ours would be fair?

That's because your a heartless communist. Didn't you read posts other than the first one I put? Here's the National Sovereignty/Individual Sovereignty bit:

They are the same thing

Why?

Because the government is only as powerful as its citizens. The government needs the support of a body of people because the collective will of the people empowers it. But if they collectively will against it, you have no power!

U r a $t00pid 1ib3r@l !!! n0 1 w@nts t0 @ppr0v3 ur 1ib3r@l laws! 1 r CONSERVATIVE !!!!!!!:upyours:
I never said the UN would approve it. I just said my opinion. Also I am not doing this for fear of revolt either. I am doing it because I do not belive people having guns around the house saves lives. I think people die because of it. Kids may take guns to school and start shooting them. Adults get angry and shoot others. Taking away the guns can save many lives.

About being heartless communist. First I am a strong supporter of politics and do not belive in taxes anywhere near as high as communism. So here you are blatently wrong. "But if they collectively will against it, you have no power!
" agreed but you are an idiot who thinks people don't want guns because they are going to rebel. That is completly wrong I am trying to prevent death.

Maybe you should look at how many deaths there are in Canada from guns then look over at the great america.

That's because your a heartless communist. Didn't you read posts other than the first one I put? Here's the National Sovereignty/Individual Sovereignty bit:

They are the same thing

Why?

Because the government is only as powerful as its citizens. The government needs the support of a body of people because the collective will of the people empowers it. But if they collectively will against it, you have no power!

U r a $t00pid 1ib3r@l !!! n0 1 w@nts t0 @ppr0v3 ur 1ib3r@l laws! 1 r CONSERVATIVE !!!!!!!:upyours:
I never said the UN would approve it. I just said my opinion. Also I am not doing this for fear of revolt either. I am doing it because I do not belive people having guns around the house saves lives. I think people die because of it. Kids may take guns to school and start shooting them. Adults get angry and shoot others. Taking away the guns can save many lives.

About being heartless communist. First I am a strong supporter of politics and do not belive in taxes anywhere near as high as communism. So here you are blatently wrong. "But if they collectively will against it, you have no power!
" agreed but you are an idiot who thinks people don't want guns because they are going to rebel. That is completly wrong I am trying to prevent death.

Maybe you should look at how many deaths there are in Canada from guns then look over at the United States.

I AM NOT AGAINST DEMOCRACY I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER. I treat my citizens well so they won't revolt. Also why would they revolt if they could vote me out of office.

That's because your a heartless communist. Didn't you read posts other than the first one I put? Here's the National Sovereignty/Individual Sovereignty bit:

They are the same thing Bullshit they are. NatSovs want the UN to stick to issues that are international in nature like the UN Counterterrorism Initiative currently at vote, and wants the UN to stay out of issues that are intranational in nature, like a nations guns laws.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Since you are all obviously concerned with the possible positive and detrimental effects any gun or protective or whatever measures will incur, then give me suggestions and the like instead of complaints and defenses!

This first draft had no possibility of reaching quorum, but it did have effect in some response and input, which is what it needed and currently needs.

Bullshit they are. NatSovs want the UN to stick to issues that are international in nature like the UN Counterterrorism Initiative currently at vote, and wants the UN to stay out of issues that are intranational in nature, like a nations guns laws.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don


I'm sorry i didn't refer to the context of that comment. I intended that comment to be taken in the presence of singularly an individual nation's intraspective, not in interspective results. That would be a whole larger topic directly branching from the first. I'm not against all approaches of national sovereignty, actually for it most of the time, because the sovereignty issue depicts the very first binary basis in which laws are written: sovereign perspective, which may or may not be appropriate for the time, law, body, and so forth.

This law was not written with a sovereign perspective because of the nature of it, which is why i started this thread: to effectively compromise edges in the law.

I'm sorry i didn't refer to the context of that comment. I intended that comment to be taken in the presence of singularly an individual nation's intraspective, not in interspective results. That would be a whole larger topic directly branching from the first. I'm not against all approaches of national sovereignty, actually for it most of the time, because the sovereignty issue depicts the very first binary basis in which laws are written: sovereign perspective, which may or may not be appropriate for the time, law, body, and so forth.

This law was not written with a sovereign perspective because of the nature of it, which is why i started this thread: to effectively compromise edges in the law.
I know I would not support you and don't think it would pass if you force people to allow there citizens guns. On the other hand it has no chance in hell if you try to stop people from letting citizens have gun so don't do that either.

So I would suggest not doing either of those.

OOC: Being an arms dealing nation, and the fact that this would severely limit my market base, I wouldn't support this, but I'm not a member of the UN and haven't been for some time now.

That said, those nations like myself (look at the military storefront threads) who have UN membership would most likely not support something like this, either. In principle (and the real world), however, I support proper registration, education, and responsible use when it comes to firearms, which includes the part where they're used to defend yourself and others from otherwise deadly situations.

As for outlawing guns from the possession of private citizens, it's a bad idea.
No national border is 100% secure, no matter what anyone says. Illegal weaponry will get through, one way or another, and criminals will get access to firearms (or whatever tech-level weapons the guy next to you manufactures), and private citizens will not, making them easy prey for the newly-armed criminals. Police forces can't be everywhere 100% of the time, either, so relying on their protection from criminals with illegal weapons is not likely.

Legally armed citizens, carrying registered sidearms, with concealed carry permits, do a lot to reduce crime. Allowing private citizens to own weapons also reduces home invasion and break-in style crimes. Would you try to mug someone you thought might be packing a weapon? Would you invade a home that you thought might be home to an owner of an effective home defense item, like a 12 gage shotgun or registered short-barreled rifle? Unless you're either extremely brave, incredibly stupid, or both, you wouldn't risk it.

There have been instances of armed citizens defusing a situation or holding a crook at gunpoint until peace officers could arrive. Take guns away, the criminals get them anyway, and private citizens resort to more primitive means of self-defense, like knives and fists, which are no-where near as effective, psycologically or physically, as firearms (whatever tech level). You'd literally be forcing them to bring a knife to a gunfight.

If you're looking for something to please everyone, I'd start with a registration act, banning military firearms (barrels below a certain length, full-automatic, burst-capable, explosives, grenade launchers, etc.), UN-sponsored gun education and safe useage programs, concealed carry permit regulations, and the ability for individual nations to set anything further than those basic regualtions and rules.

A basic set of guidelines for banned hardware would include (Modern-tech, at least):

No longarm (rifle or shotgun) with a barrel below sixteen (16) inches or equivalent measurement in metric

No belt-fed weapons

No military explosives of any sort (grenades, plastic compounds, rockets, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars)

Devices to fire military explosives of any sort (grenade launchers, RPG launchers, mortars)

No .50 BMG caliber weapons (No civilian needs a weapon that powerful)

No fully-automatic or burst-fire capable firearms of any sort

You could even go so far as to limit the magazine capacity to ten rounds, if that makes you feel any better, so any weapon you encounter will only have ten or fewer rounds in the magazine, and at the most eleven in the weapon itself with one in the chamber.

Just a thought if you're serious about this gun-control thing.

OOC: Being an arms dealing nation, and the fact that this would severely limit my market base, I wouldn't support this, but I'm not a member of the UN and haven't been for some time now.

That said, those nations like myself (look at the military storefront threads) who have UN membership would most likely not support something like this, either. In principle (and the real world), however, I support proper registration, education, and responsible use when it comes to firearms, which includes the part where they're used to defend yourself and others from otherwise deadly situations.

As for outlawing guns from the possession of private citizens, it's a bad idea.
No national border is 100% secure, no matter what anyone says. Illegal weaponry will get through, one way or another, and criminals will get access to firearms (or whatever tech-level weapons the guy next to you manufactures), and private citizens will not, making them easy prey for the newly-armed criminals. Police forces can't be everywhere 100% of the time, either, so relying on their protection from criminals with illegal weapons is not likely.

Legally armed citizens, carrying registered sidearms, with concealed carry permits, do a lot to reduce crime. Allowing private citizens to own weapons also reduces home invasion and break-in style crimes. Would you try to mug someone you thought might be packing a weapon? Would you invade a home that you thought might be home to an owner of an effective home defense item, like a 12 gage shotgun or registered short-barreled rifle? Unless you're either extremely brave, incredibly stupid, or both, you wouldn't risk it.

There have been instances of armed citizens defusing a situation or holding a crook at gunpoint until peace officers could arrive. Take guns away, the criminals get them anyway, and private citizens resort to more primitive means of self-defense, like knives and fists, which are no-where near as effective, psycologically or physically, as firearms (whatever tech level). You'd literally be forcing them to bring a knife to a gunfight.

If you're looking for something to please everyone, I'd start with a registration act, banning military firearms (barrels below a certain length, full-automatic, burst-capable, explosives, grenade launchers, etc.), UN-sponsored gun education and safe useage programs, concealed carry permit regulations, and the ability for individual nations to set anything further than those basic regualtions and rules.

A basic set of guidelines for banned hardware would include (Modern-tech, at least):

No longarm (rifle or shotgun) with a barrel below sixteen (16) inches or equivalent measurement in metric

No belt-fed weapons

No military explosives of any sort (grenades, plastic compounds, rockets, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars)

Devices to fire military explosives of any sort (grenade launchers, RPG launchers, mortars)

No .50 BMG caliber weapons (No civilian needs a weapon that powerful)

No fully-automatic or burst-fire capable firearms of any sort

You could even go so far as to limit the magazine capacity to ten rounds, if that makes you feel any better, so any weapon you encounter will only have ten or fewer rounds in the magazine, and at the most eleven in the weapon itself with one in the chamber.

Just a thought if you're serious about this gun-control thing.

I would suggest reserching guns first. To have well set requirements and if you want I would help if you needed anything(in making somehthing of the variety of what he said).

OOC: Being an arms dealing nation, and the fact that this would severely limit my market base, I wouldn't support this, but I'm not a member of the UN and haven't been for some time now.

That said, those nations like myself (look at the military storefront threads) who have UN membership would most likely not support something like this, either. In principle (and the real world), however, I support proper registration, education, and responsible use when it comes to firearms, which includes the part where they're used to defend yourself and others from otherwise deadly situations.

As for outlawing guns from the possession of private citizens, it's a bad idea.
No national border is 100% secure, no matter what anyone says. Illegal weaponry will get through, one way or another, and criminals will get access to firearms (or whatever tech-level weapons the guy next to you manufactures), and private citizens will not, making them easy prey for the newly-armed criminals. Police forces can't be everywhere 100% of the time, either, so relying on their protection from criminals with illegal weapons is not likely.

Legally armed citizens, carrying registered sidearms, with concealed carry permits, do a lot to reduce crime. Allowing private citizens to own weapons also reduces home invasion and break-in style crimes. Would you try to mug someone you thought might be packing a weapon? Would you invade a home that you thought might be home to an owner of an effective home defense item, like a 12 gage shotgun or registered short-barreled rifle? Unless you're either extremely brave, incredibly stupid, or both, you wouldn't risk it.

There have been instances of armed citizens defusing a situation or holding a crook at gunpoint until peace officers could arrive. Take guns away, the criminals get them anyway, and private citizens resort to more primitive means of self-defense, like knives and fists, which are no-where near as effective, psycologically or physically, as firearms (whatever tech level). You'd literally be forcing them to bring a knife to a gunfight.

If you're looking for something to please everyone, I'd start with a registration act, banning military firearms (barrels below a certain length, full-automatic, burst-capable, explosives, grenade launchers, etc.), UN-sponsored gun education and safe useage programs, concealed carry permit regulations, and the ability for individual nations to set anything further than those basic regualtions and rules.

A basic set of guidelines for banned hardware would include (Modern-tech, at least):

No longarm (rifle or shotgun) with a barrel below sixteen (16) inches or equivalent measurement in metric

No belt-fed weapons

No military explosives of any sort (grenades, plastic compounds, rockets, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars)

Devices to fire military explosives of any sort (grenade launchers, RPG launchers, mortars)

No .50 BMG caliber weapons (No civilian needs a weapon that powerful)

No fully-automatic or burst-fire capable firearms of any sort

You could even go so far as to limit the magazine capacity to ten rounds, if that makes you feel any better, so any weapon you encounter will only have ten or fewer rounds in the magazine, and at the most eleven in the weapon itself with one in the chamber.

Just a thought if you're serious about this gun-control thing.

Why bother banning a type of weapon that is so large and expensive that it's never been used in a crime? Who's gonna use a 30-odd pound Barrett(35 pounds IIRC) when they can use a cheaper, lighter, and equally dangerous AK/AR variant(no more deadly than my 30-06), or whatever your much maligned firearm of choice is? I also note that you exempted the .500 Mag and the .50 AE, as well as the other .50 cal bullets out there, strictly limiting it to firearms utilizing .50 BMG.

That basically limits you to banning M-2s(already covered under "belt fed"), and Barretts. And realistically, why would you ban an -82 or similar weapon? They're big, impossible to hide effectively, heavy, and have low magazine capacity(5 or 10 round box). On the other hand a much smaller weapon, like the AK(any variant), the MP5(any variant), some carbines(9mms, others), and larger caliber automatics(DE .357, .45 ACP) and large frame revolvers(X Frame, similar styles) are much more easily concealed, just as effective at killing, and much less expensive for the most part.

I would suggest reserching guns first. To have well set requirements and if you want I would help if you needed anything(in making somehthing of the variety of what he said).

OOC: What exactly are you saying?

Why bother banning a type of weapon that is so large and expensive that it's never been used in a crime? Who's gonna use a 30-odd pound Barrett(35 pounds IIRC) when they can use a cheaper, lighter, and equally dangerous AK/AR variant(no more deadly than my 30-06), or whatever your much maligned firearm of choice is? I also note that you exempted the .500 Mag and the .50 AE, as well as the other .50 cal bullets out there, strictly limiting it to firearms utilizing .50 BMG.

That basically limits you to banning M-2s(already covered under "belt fed"), and Barretts. And realistically, why would you ban an -82 or similar weapon? They're big, impossible to hide effectively, heavy, and have low magazine capacity(5 or 10 round box). On the other hand a much smaller weapon, like the AK(any variant), the MP5(any variant), some carbines(9mms, others), and larger caliber automatics(DE .357, .45 ACP) and large frame revolvers(X Frame, similar styles) are much more easily concealed, just as effective at killing, and much less expensive for the most part.

OOC: I'm well aware of this, I'm a former Marine Corps armorer and retired professional gunsmith.

For close assault purposes, like you describe using the large X-frame revolver for, a Ruger Mk I, II, or III with an integral silencer (silencers would also be illegal) would work better. While a .22 caliber weapon, ten rounds in a stomach tend to solve such problems effectively. They're also easier to conceal than any caliber of Desert Eagle. Of course, you also need to be close to your target to use any of the weapons you mentioned.

I've seen the .500 magnum and .50 AE calibers used for hunting purposes, further, British SAS operatives captured an M82A1 Barrett from IRA forces in northern Ireland. It's not that the weapon hasn't been used in a crime, it's that it very well could be. Attacks against politicians, aircraft, armored vehicles, and basically any hard target from extreme range is a possibility with an anti-material rifle, which is the correct classification of the 12.7x99mm (.50 BMG) caliber weapons, not just the M82A1, but the Serbu rifles and the other similar weapons, some of which are single-shot, others in bullpup configuration. Due to the massive size of the projectile (half an inch wide), you wouldn't need more than a single shot to massively damage something, or terminate a living target beyond any reasonable doubt.

In short, my logic is that the .50 BMG round, not the .500 magnum or .50 AE, has no use outside of military and terrorist applications, and shouldn't be in the hands of private citizens. I agree with your point that smaller caliber and less expensive rifles would do the job of eliminating a living target just as effectively, but they would be useless in an anti-material role, which the M82A1 (and it's conterparts) was designed for. I'm sure you've seen the movie 'SWAT'? The scene with the helicopter being shot out of the sky? That's the kind of anti-material use I'm talking about.

Strikes against other expensive items like government communications dishes, presidential limos, military aircraft (when not in flight, of course), military surface vessels, and the less important but equally annoying targets like watertowers, fuel-tanker trucks (some of which carry biohazardous materials and chemical weapons, at least in the case of the US), and other key infastructure are what makes that particular round so dangerous. While the AE of .500 magnum would accomplish this, they can't do so from the ranges that the BMG is capable of.

When employed properly, they are also very hard to detect, to answer your statement of a M82A1 being impossible to conceal. I believe you've seen the Army's Special Forces advertisement? With the snipers observing the insurgent camp below their position?

Instead of trying to tear apart my statement, which I posted for the sole purpose of assisting the starter of this thread, as well as reminding him of the nations out there that deal heavily in arms, I'd appreciate your assistance in helping him create gun control legislation acceptable to a majority.

Here's a link to the Serbu website, another fine manufacturer of .50 BMG long-rifles: http://www.serbu.com/bfg50.htm

OOC: What exactly are you saying?
Oh I was talking to Riknaht mostly saying if he wants to make a resolution on what you said before. I would suggest that he know alot about guns.

OOC: I'm well aware of this, I'm a former Marine Corps armorer and retired professional gunsmith.

For close assault purposes, like you describe using the large X-frame revolver for, a Ruger Mk I, II, or III with an integral silencer (silencers would also be illegal) would work better. While a .22 caliber weapon, ten rounds in a stomach tend to solve such problems effectively. They're also easier to conceal than any caliber of Desert Eagle. Of course, you also need to be close to your target to use any of the weapons you mentioned.

I've seen the .500 magnum and .50 AE calibers used for hunting purposes, further, British SAS operatives captured an M82A1 Barrett from IRA forces in northern Ireland. It's not that the weapon hasn't been used in a crime, it's that it very well could be. Attacks against politicians, aircraft, armored vehicles, and basically any hard target from extreme range is a possibility with an anti-material rifle, which is the correct classification of the 12.7x99mm (.50 BMG) caliber weapons, not just the M82A1, but the Serbu rifles and the other similar weapons, some of which are single-shot, others in bullpup configuration. Due to the massive size of the projectile (half an inch wide), you wouldn't need more than a single shot to massively damage something, or terminate a living target beyond any reasonable doubt.

In short, my logic is that the .50 BMG round, not the .500 magnum or .50 AE, has no use outside of military and terrorist applications, and shouldn't be in the hands of private citizens. I agree with your point that smaller caliber and less expensive rifles would do the job of eliminating a living target just as effectively, but they would be useless in an anti-material role, which the M82A1 (and it's conterparts) was designed for. I'm sure you've seen the movie 'SWAT'? The scene with the helicopter being shot out of the sky? That's the kind of anti-material use I'm talking about.

Strikes against other expensive items like government communications dishes, presidential limos, military aircraft (when not in flight, of course), military surface vessels, and the less important but equally annoying targets like watertowers, fuel-tanker trucks (some of which carry biohazardous materials and chemical weapons, at least in the case of the US), and other key infastructure are what makes that particular round so dangerous. While the AE of .500 magnum would accomplish this, they can't do so from the ranges that the BMG is capable of.

When employed properly, they are also very hard to detect, to answer your statement of a M82A1 being impossible to conceal. I believe you've seen the Army's Special Forces advertisement? With the snipers observing the insurgent camp below their position?

Instead of trying to tear apart my statement, which I posted for the sole purpose of assisting the starter of this thread, as well as reminding him of the nations out there that deal heavily in arms, I'd appreciate your assistance in helping him create gun control legislation acceptable to a majority.

Here's a link to the Serbu website, another fine manufacturer of .50 BMG long-rifles: http://www.serbu.com/bfg50.htm

Sorry about the delayed response to this, work is a pain in the butt.

You refer to terrorism. Terrorists do not face the same limitations as most criminals. You will not see MS having the financial power to afford any of the Barretts, or anything else of comparable size. The Bloods will not run around with a bunch of DEs. You will not see Crips with Ma Duece. Regular criminals will use weapons that are most effective to their needs. Concealability, medium caliber(9mm/.38 family of rounds, grading up to .40 S&W at the high end), light weight, and easy maintenance. That's what the assholes around here want. Which is why the Glock and Springfield equivalents have become so popular in my area.

My point is that .30-30, .30-06, .308, and certain wildcats could do just as good of a job against alot of soft targets(commercial airliners, tanker trucks), people(the pres, congressmen, families thereof), and disabling certain lighter vehicles(non-military). Heck, if you want to get into "weapons too powerful for civvies" argument, why not ban things like elephant guns, or larger caliber hunting rifles? Ban my personal choice of arms, the 1903 Springfield. It can kill someone from great distance. Not the mile of a good shot with a Barrett, but still damn good range. My buddies .308 magnum(wildcat) rounds have even better range than my Springfield, and more power. Still not as good as the Barrett, but more than enough to punch through a wall(funny story there). You are suggesting banning a type of weapon that, as a rule, is so large as to be unwieldy at most times.

You mention the SF vid. How did they get there? By walking through a city, carrying a 35 pound rifle, and ammunition? Or perhaps by getting a ride, and approaching through concealment? When you say criminals, you mean terrorists. When I say criminals, I mean gangsters and thugs. People that commit crimes. Not people that commit acts of war. A more acceptable gun control resolution in my mind would cover, at the most, military grade hardware, squad level support weapons and up. There's just too much bad press surrounding most milspec weapons. 5.56 does not scare me, as a genewral rule. Primarily because it's a wounder as a general rule. I'd be more worried by an AK, but even then, it's just a .308. More powerful, but still not something that would worry me overmuch. I dunno if I'm just infected with a dangerous nonchalance around firearms, if familiarity has bred dangerous contempt, or if redneck stupidity blinds me to the risks of fully automatic firearms. I personally am not worried about leghal ownership of ANY firearm. I don't worry until a poorly trained criminal gets ahold of it.