NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Proposal

Gun Control

Firearms Protection Act

Decision: tighten

NOTING that gun-related deaths are getting out of hand

AWARE that guns can save your life, but also destroy another persons life

WISHING to educate the people on these truths, and reduce the occurrence of gun-related deaths

COGNIZANT to the truths of the dangers of firearms

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a firearm as a weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

2) INCLUDES obscure weapons such as bows, crossbows, compressed CO2 guns, etc. in the definition of a firearm

3) MANDATES that all firearms must be bought from a licensed individual, store, or corporation

4) FURTHER MANDATES that all owners must complete a Firearms Safety course

5) CONTINUES TO MANDATE that all member nations must create a national firearms agency whose purpose is to provide courses for Firearms Safety, license reputable individuals, companies, or corporations who wish to sell firearms, and approve firearms for purchase

6) ESTABLISHES the United Nations Gun Agency, whose purpose is to oversee the creation of national firearms agencies

7) DETERMINES that the firearms must be approved for purchase by the national firearms agencies

8) FURTHER DETERMINES that the United Nations Gun Agency has the authority to overrule a national firearms agency in the matters of firearms selling licenses and approved firearms

9) DEFINES a national army as any military force regulated by the government

10) EXCLUDES national armies, police forces, and other such govermental entities from this process

I could use some feedback in the editing of this draft. Thank you

The "NOTING" clause might have a House of Cards violation...maybe. I doubt it, but still...

And, I would like at least some details on what you mean by licesning? If you are going to have those rules, that might be nice to define the rules for us rather than letting US decide, and thereby defeat this resolution that violates National Soverignty...

Lastly...your preamble clauses talk about why NOT to approve such a resolution...it would be nice to add some clauses over there (actually, a lot of them) that would explain what's the point of having regulations of firearms.

...And wouldn't this force all UN nations' armies to register their weapons with the UN? That might be too...dangerous.

OOC: whoops i posted the old, unmodified version.
ill put up the new one soon.

I assume the new one is in the original post?

The first issue here I can see is that some nations don't have an armed force in the conventional sense, and would rely on local militia groups or even conscription on a ad hoc basis. You could define these as part of an "armed force" or not, depending on how you look at it.

The second issue I can think of is that the selling of guns should not be limited to licenced individuals. Large commercial chain stores should be able to have the same licencing.

There might be more, but these are at least something to ponder.

Police? Security? What will the licensing process entail and who will decide this information? In fact, right now, your proposal would give nations the right to decide the requirements of the license and then the UN would have to figure out whether someone met the requirements of said license

Further:
-Funding? Enough clerks to handle 30 000 nations worth of licensing (not to mention the licenses on the purchase) sounds expensive and painful. Where would their office be? Obviously, the only UN owned property (this building) couldn't hope to accommodate that much labor (hell, it doesn't have enough room for the ambassadors....). Ditto for the safety courses
-People that already own guns?
-Construction and underground sale of weaponry is still legal at the UN level. What do you do about that?

Honestly, I think you took the wrong angle on this proposal (probably starting with the idea that the UN is a fully funded government rather than a body who's building is near collapse and couldn't hope to pay for renovations because so many of her members - including the entirety of Gatesville - keep "forgetting" to pay their voluntary "membership donations")

OOC: resolution updated

To lighten the load on the cost, maybe it should mandate that every nation should establish a gun control agency of their own.

Ah, so every single purchase of a firearm has to be approved by the UN? Gotta love micromanagement... :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We would be in agreement with this draft, except for the unfortunate fact that it would create a UN agency whose sole purpose was to establish control over, and track, who buys guns in every UN nation, including our own. We consider that to be excessively intrusive into national affairs.

- Markus Paulanus, Deputy Ambassador for Security Concerns

this, like most things with the UN, is too intrusive and broad-scale. I suggest you make a national legislation on gun control mandatory instead of mandating one international body to do so, but regulate international trade instead.

second, you need to change the first line to something more eloquent that conveys what you wish to say.

third, what are the penalties for violating this?

Honestly, I think you took the wrong angle on this proposal (probably starting with the idea that the UN is a fully funded government rather than a body who's building is near collapse and couldn't hope to pay for renovations because so many of her members - including the entirety of Gatesville - keep "forgetting" to pay their voluntary "membership donations")

"Voluntary"? We thought that they were compulsory...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume!)

"Voluntary"? We thought that they were compulsory...
Well, you were wrong.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

"Voluntary"? We thought that they were compulsory...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume!)

Find me a single resolution or alternate document which tells UN members they are required to pay anything.....

Find me a single resolution or alternate document which tells UN members they are required to pay anything.....

don't we have to pay for drinks at the bar? :p


This proposal we feel messes with the ability of nations to choose their own gun laws and interfers with national sovereignty.


The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

This proposal we feel messes with the ability of nations to choose their own ... laws and interfers with national sovereignty.

... which is exactly the same as every other resolution ever passed. Which is why we don't accept that as an argument in proposal school.

4 Problems we have with this proposal:

1.) As stated by Forgottenlands earlier, what happens to all current gun owners, ex post facto?

2.) The cost to implement this proposal could very well cause the second great depression

3.) there are no penalties (then again i have never seen penalties included in a proposal).

4.) The police are completely excluded from this proposal. Do they fall under the category of military?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

new updated version shown in the original post.
Cookesland:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #194 states that there can be no ex post facto laws, so i cannot include that in my proposal.

don't we have to pay for drinks at the bar? :p

Well, actually, I've been meaning to have a little chat with you about that ... you know that "account" you've been telling me to put them on? Uh ... I don't want to worry you, but what's your GDP, again?

--Neville Notthatone Chamberlain, BarLord.

*brief scuffle. Dicey Reilly regains the mike.*

This proposal we feel messes with the ability of nations to choose their own gun laws

Most UN proposals mess in some way with the ability of nations to choose to do or not do something; that's why this

and interfers with national sovereignty.

is not much of an argument, by itself.

Which is not to say I support this proposal. Though I don't agree with Crazed Marines that it's too broad. Broad is good in UN proposals. If the citizens of all nations were as genuinely good, noble, idealistic and intelligent as the citizens of Ardchoille, the UN would just have to say what it wants done, then let the nations get on with it.

Er ... I don't demand eloquence in proposals, either. Saying what you have to say is good, too.

But this isn't:

WISHING to educate the people on these truths, and reduce the occurrence of them

It says that you want to educate people on these truths, and then reduce the occurence of these truths. Invalid under the "I know what you mean, but you didn't say it" convention. Substitute "gun-related deaths" for "them".

This one

3) ESTABLISHES the United Nations Gun Agency, whose purpose is to provide courses for Firearms Safety, license reputable individuals who wish to sell guns, and approve firearms for purchase

might appeal to the UN gnomes, because they're going to have to go into a frenzy of reproduction just to come up with enough of them to staff this agency, but it's really something better handled at a national level.

Note, I'm not saying morally better. Just easier. As has already been said, this funnels every single gun approval in every UN nation through the UN ...

... oh, I see. If this came into effect, the bureaucratic delays would quickly build to such a level that it would be almost impossible for anyone to gain approval to own a gun. Hoorah!

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

EDIT: Orright, so I didn't see Fris's post when I was writing that. Boo to moderators who write succinctly!

EDIT 2: Didn't see the new version of the proposal, either. See above.

new updated version shown in the original post.
Cookesland:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #194 states that there can be no ex post facto laws, so i cannot include that in my proposal.

I was asking you if thats what would happen to the current gun owners, it wasn't a suggestion.

Most UN proposals mess in some way with the ability of nations to choose to do or not do something; that's why this

is not much of an argument, by itself.



agreed, i need to make better arguements in the future...

Well, actually, I've been meaning to have a little chat with you about that ... you know that "account" you've been telling me to put them on? Uh ... I don't want to worry you, but what's your GDP, again?

--Neville Notthatone Chamberlain, BarLord.

*brief scuffle. Dicey Reilly regains the mike.*

umm....well....*thinks of some one randomly* bin Cluich said he'd cover my my tab :p

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

.. It says that you want to educate people on these truths, and then reduce the occurence of these truths. Invalid under the "I know what you mean, but you didn't say it" convention. Substitute "gun-related deaths" for "them".


ok thats fixed now. i have submitted this to the UN, but it probably still needs more revisions. Keep helping me edit it, and if you like it then please tell your regional delegate to approve it (if thats you you can do it yourself)

About that bar tab, id like a miller please....

5) DETERMINES that the firearms must be approved for purchase by the national gun agencies

Better without the "the".

I'm not familiar enough with firearms to know whether '"gun" and "firearm" cover the areas I think this proposal is aimed at. I remember previous gun limitation attempts getting bogged down in whether hand guns were the same as sporting guns and rifles and who-knows-what. I'm just asking, gun/firearm/things-go-boom experts: is this language sufficiently inclusive?

6) FURTHER DETERMINES that the United Nations Gun Agency has the authority to overrule a countries gun agency in the matters of gun selling licenses and approved firearms

Should be "a country's gun agency". Possibly better: "national gun agencies".

Clarifying: So this means the UN could say that a particular type of gun can't be sold anywhere in any UN nation? The UNGA could make a blanket ruling forbidding, say, guns that shoot lots of small pellets?

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

And, eavesdropping on the Strangers Bar ...

"... bin Cluich? God, we'll never get the money! Violet, that Cookesland mob is cash only!"

EDIT: Uh, Kampfers, if you've already submitted it, we can't edit it any further. It stands as is.

We believe that a definition of firearms would be necessary, considering the fact that obscure weapons such as bows, crossbows, compressed CO2 guns and others can do as much, if not more damage, than conventional and stereotypical guns.

is the updated version more to your liking?
and i know i cant edit a proposal ive already submitted.
i'll just resubmit the proposal when the old one expires

umm....well....*thinks of some one randomly* bin Cluich said he'd cover my my tab :p

Pay your own bloody tab, ya bum.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

and i know i cant edit a proposal ive already submitted.

Which is why we recommend you get your draft reviewed BEFORE you post to the proposals queue.

You've been posting a ton of proposals. How about just fine tuning one or two for a few days here, and see if you can get one to quorum?

We believe that a definition of firearms would be necessary, considering the fact that obscure weapons such as bows, crossbows, compressed CO2 guns and others can do as much, if not more damage, than conventional and stereotypical guns.

I think the question of how much damage other kinds of weapons can do is part of another argument -- the one about whether you do or don't approve of the purpose of this proposal. I'm just nitpicking about the wording.

I was not so much asking him to define "gun" or "firearm", as I was asking other people whether "gun" (or "firearm") is sufficient definition.

But I don't want to push the discussion into the absurd area a similar conversation reached a while back, when people started arguing about whether different models of guns were guns.

And, in any case, the category itself says "gun control', and "firearm" is the broadest term I can find for projectile-shooting weapons, so I think I've answered my own query. I'll shut up now (briefly).

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

I was asking other people whether "gun" (or "firearm") is sufficient definition.It should be. Of course, some git will claim that since firearm isn't defined, it only refers to some obscure method of fighting where one lights an upper extremity ablaze and punches people.

Firearms wouldn't cover BB guns, Airsoft-style pellet guns, or paintball guns, but those are hardly deadly weapons. And it would cover weapons with non-lethal ammunition (rocksalt).

And, who wants to use some ridiculous definition such as "chemical-propelled slug-flinging tube"?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We still wince somewhat at the level of interference the UNGA has in the running of licensing in individual nations, but as it stands there is little else for it to do once the system is up and running. A more useful committe would not do that, but could more aptly stand as a supra-national organisation that can be appealed to as a final resort if there is some belief that a national firearms agency is not doing its job.

We think also that the proposer will find licensing bows and the like will be an impractical idea. Professionally made sports bows and the like might reasonably be licensed (though we are not fond of the idea), but a sufficiently knowledgeable hunter can fashion a simple, low-powered bow in relatively short order. We have certainly enjoyed doing so on occasion, though our efforts are rarely accurate.

And, who wants to use some ridiculous definition such as "chemical-propelled slug-flinging tube"?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Dammit, Mme Vermithrax, it's Lent. Is it fair to tempt us like that in Lent?

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

I think it would save a lot of trouble and a lot of strain on national economies if this UN resolution simply banned the ownership of commercial firearms altogether.

Firearm production factories should produce firearms for military bodies under commission from the government or be modified to produce something less harmful - like children's toys - instead.

In adittion, I think that in point number 10,

10) EXCLUDES national armies, police forces, and other such national entities from this process

the phrase "excludes all national entities" would cause extremist or nationalist entities to become exempt from this resolution should they appeal to it.

-Chastity Dredd, minister of finance of the Catgirl Utopia's Protectorate

I think it would save a lot of trouble and a lot of strain on national economies if this UN resolution simply banned the ownership of commercial firearms altogether.

We are most confident that indeed would indeed save a lot of trouble and strain, because such a resolution would never pass.

- Markus Paulanus, Deputy Ambassador for Security Concerns

If this ever passes then I suppose many of our smallarms factories will convert to building laser weapons -- whose licencing we would still be allowed to handle at the national level -- instead.

<snip>In adittion, I think that in point number 10,

10) EXCLUDES national armies, police forces, and other such national entities from this process

the phrase "excludes all national entities" would cause extremist or nationalist entities to become exempt from this resolution should they appeal to it.

-Chastity Dredd, minister of finance of the Catgirl Utopia's Protectorate

I think that you might be stretching it a bit, Ms Dredd, because of the word "such". But I suppose it's possible that extremist or nationalist entities might be regarded as organisations similar to the police force or army (the state's in trouble, if that's the case, but it could happen).

Would this get around your objection?

10) EXCLUDES national armies, police forces, and other such governmental entities from this process

Kampfers, whaddya reckon?

It's up to the proposer how he takes on board the St Edmundan rep's comment, but, as a longterm admirer of that worthy gentleman's sartorial splendour, I have a question of my own: how did you manage to get here without wearing your penguin costume?

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Your right, that is better.
i will fix it now.

Clarifying: So this means the UN could say that a particular type of gun can't be sold anywhere in any UN nation? The UNGA could make a blanket ruling forbidding, say, guns that shoot lots of small pellets?

Yeah....go to the IM in my Sig, look up the CM99 Anti-Tank Rifle. $5 says this would get banned if that were implemented. Mind you I usually ignore UN bans on my arms so its nothing new...but still it needs to be noted that that part WILL affect commerce greatly.

Pay your own bloody tab, ya bum.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


agreed :p

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland