NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing how easily obtained an Automatic Weapon is and how deadly one can be, such as in the instance of the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, attempts to limit the sales of Automatic Weapons with the following proposal:


NOTING that Automatic weapons should be considered weapons of war that an average citizen cannot control; therefore

DETERMINES that they should be kept out of the hands of psychologically unstable persons or those lacking the ability to control said weapons of war;

HEREBY enacts the following:

1. A permit program similar to that of a concealed weapons permit is initiated.

2. Said permit program requires a psychological evaluation AND a firearms test wherein passing or failing is determined by an expert with experience with weapons exceeding 30 years.

3. Every five years said permit expires, and

4. A new permit must be obtained through another psychological evaluation and firearms test.

OOC: At least you kept the RL reference out of the proposal itself.

I'm going to ask a couple of questions, hopefully you can answer them for me.

Whose concealed weapons permit are you referencing?

Who pays for the permit test?

What about countries that have average ages that are extremely low? One in which it'd be odd to find a person over 40, much less one that knows firearms(and has known them since he was 10).

Is this meant to ban it in such countries?

Why do I need to know how to shoot a gun to own one anyhow?

Do you wanna make sure everyone that owns it can kill with it?

What about police?(Military too, since you don't specifically exempt them)

What about countries that ban automatic weapons? You'd be forcing them to allow them with permits.


OOC:
Seeing how easily obtained an Automatic Weapon is and how deadly one can be, such as in the instance of the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, attempts to limit the sales of Automatic Weapons with the following proposal:

A list of weapons used at Virginia Tech and Columbine:

Columbine:

Shooter 1:
12 gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun
Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle

Shooter 2:
9 mm Intratec Tec-9 Semi-automatic handgun
12 gauge Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun

Virginia Tech:

Shooter 1:
22 caliber Walther semi-automatic pistol
9mm semi-automatic Glock 19


None of which are automatic weapons.

Very good points, thank you. Now to answer your questions:

Whose concealed weapons permit are you referencing?

Perhaps there should be a concealed weapons permit proposal first...


Who pays for the permit test?

It will go into my next draft that the individual should pay for the test.

What about countries that have average ages that are extremely low?

I have no ideas as regards to this, perhaps others can help.

Is this meant to ban it in such countries?

Definitely not. It is merely a deterrent for future attacks on human life, regardless of which nation they live in.

Why do I need to know how to shoot a gun to own one anyhow?

Exactly the situation this proposal is trying to deter. It is the type of people that don't know how to use guns that get into the most trouble, especially when they have automatic weapons.

Do you wanna make sure everyone that owns it can kill with it?

Definitely not. It is Schamtek's hope that the psychological evaluation will weed out those who would use automatic weapons to kill; the fire test is to ensure that the buyer of the automatic weapon knows how to keep the gun safe, and when in the unfortunate event that it is needed they know how to properly fire the weapon without causing collateral damage.

What about police?(Military too, since you don't specifically exempt them)

Perhaps Schamtek has assumed that countries outside of our boundaries train their military and police with automatic weapons before they are allowed onto the force. I will add an addendum to my proposal singling out military and police forces and how they should handle automatic weapons.

What about countries that ban automatic weapons? You'd be forcing them to allow them with permits.

Yet another addendum I will add will have this proposal not affect countries that have already banned automatic weapons.

None of which are automatic weapons.

Point taken. Schamtek realizes, however, if casualty rates during the incidents would have increased dramatically if those persons had used automatic weapons. At the very least, this proposal will not allow the individuals involved in such incidents to ever have automatic weapons.

Schamtek thanks the honorable representative from Douria for their input.

Perhaps there should be a concealed weapons permit proposal first...
We would suggest rather eliminating the reference, and spelling out what is meant instead. Referring to something which might not exist can only cause trouble, and will be used as an exploitable loophole by those so inclined.

We would also prefer it if it was made clear that this was not requiring nations which currently prohibit the civilian possession of automatic weaponry to make such weaponry available under the permit system.

It will go into my next draft that the individual should pay for the test.
We would personally prefer that it remained unspecified, and therefore at the discretion of individual nations.

I have no ideas as regards to this [low average ages], perhaps others can help.
We would suggest not mentioning the experience requirement in terms of years. "Experienced" is probably sufficient on its own.

Perhaps Schamtek has assumed that countries outside of our boundaries train their military and police with automatic weapons before they are allowed onto the force. I will add an addendum to my proposal singling out military and police forces and how they should handle automatic weapons.
We aren't convinced that they should handle automatic weapons in any way differently. The guardians of order and defenders of the nation are precisely the people we most expect to have the requisite skill to use their weapons and the wisdom to know when not to. Donning a uniform does not automatically confer such accuracy and sanity, except of course in nations where it does, in which the passing of the required tests will be a trivial matter.

We thank the honoured representative of Schamtek for that rare thing, a thoughtful proposal on gun control. We are not particularly convinced that it will be of great help in the situations outlined, but clearly it is worthy of consideration and will offer a degree of assurance that would otherwise be lacking.

my friend played this game before and there was an issue in his country to ban all weapons or make everyone have weapons. if this UN law goes through will it affect the issues i get every day so that i dont get the option of weapons like my friend got? i got a worker strike issue today can i answer what i want or do i have to figure out the UN laws and answer the issue the same way? alot of claws to read through for a noob

Seeing how easily obtained an Automatic Weapon is and how deadly one can be, such as in the instance of the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, attempts to limit the sales of Automatic Weapons with the following proposal:

*snip*

Just one question: What makes this an appropriate matter for the UN, rather than national governments, to handle?

my friend played this game before and there was an issue in his country to ban all weapons or make everyone have weapons. if this UN law goes through will it affect the issues i get every day so that i dont get the option of weapons like my friend got? i got a worker strike issue today can i answer what i want or do i have to figure out the UN laws and answer the issue the same way? alot of claws to read through for a noob

I'm fairly sure that being in the UN doesn't affect the range of issues that you get.
Players of UN nations should answer issues in ways that are compatible with the resolutions in force, although they're free to exploit any loopholes that the authors left in those resolutions' wording, but still get the full range of options for any issue that they do get: It's good roleplay to choose ones that are compatible with the current body of UN law, but there's nothing in the actual programming to restrict your choice.

Seeing how easily obtained an Automatic Weapon is and how deadly one can be, such as in the instance of the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, attempts to stop the sales of Automatic Weapons with the following proposal: Automatic Weapons are dangerous things

I'm fairly sure that being in the UN doesn't affect the range of issues that you get.Not directly, no. Of course, if the effects from a UN Resolution move your stats to a point where you don't qualify for an issue, you won't get it, but, for instance, the Sex Workers Industry Act alone won't prevent you from getting prostitution Issues.


Seeing how easily obtained an Automatic Weapon is and how deadly one can be, such as in the instance of the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings...neither of which involved automatic weapons. Those events were tragic enough without being used as cudgels for anyone with a political agenda to push.

Our nation intends to oppose this resolution should it come up for a vote. Unfortunately restricting access to automatic weapons--which is good in theory--would also make it more difficult for repressed citizens to resist oppressive dictatorships that are frequently found on the ends of the political spectrum.

Altanar has strict gun control regulations in place. Does this mean that we think our point of view on gun control should be imposed on every other single UN nation? No.

In other words, we don't see this as anything resembling an issue requiring international legislation. Opposed.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

NOTING that Automatic weapons should be considered weapons of war that an average citizen cannot control; therefore

With proper licensing and registration i don't see why a person with no history or medical record of psychological instability could not have one.

DETERMINES that they should be kept out of the hands of psychologically unstable persons or those lacking the ability to control said weapons of war;

Completely agreed


HEREBY enacts the following:

1. A permit program similar to that of a concealed weapons permit is initiated.

2. Said permit program requires a psychological evaluation AND a firearms test wherein passing or failing is determined by an expert with experience with weapons exceeding 30 years.

3. Every five years said permit expires, and

4. A new permit must be obtained through another psychological evaluation and firearms test.

I think the 30 years part is a bit extreme, why couldn't a certified instructor do it? Finally, is concerning all guns or just Automatic Firearms?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

First of all there as never been a weapon of any kind that has gotten up walk over to a person and kill them, but people do this daily. You taking the weapons out of the hands of people will not stop the killing. People always find away to kill. It's part of their selfish nature.

Are you going to ban pencils next, because one can kill with a pencil. Next should ban forks and spoons, because they can be use to kill.

When are you people going to understand that it the people not the weapon that's doing the killing.

First of all there as never been a weapon of any kind that has gotten up walk over to a person and kill them, but people do this daily. You taking the weapons out of the hands of people will not stop the killing. People always find away to kill. It's part of their selfish nature.

Are you going to ban pencils next, because one can kill with a pencil. Next should ban forks and spoons, because they can be use to kill.

When are you people going to understand that it the people not the weapon that's doing the killing.

OOC:
I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, I don't agree with any sort of gun control extending to the international stage(and fairly moderate on it in general), but this argument has always irked me.

Guns are an ENABLER. There is a very serious difference between pointing a gun at someone's head and blowing their brains out and beating someone in the head with a club. The ease of using guns, and in this case automatic weapons make them much more efficient killers than any other legal weapon a human can pick up.

No, a gun isn't what gets up and kills people, but we're not talking about taking guns away from guns. We're talking about taking guns away from people who kill people.

If in either Columbine or Virginia Tech, the gunmen had instead been armed with knives or clubs, the body counts would have been not only lower but likely 0.

Guns allow violent people to accomplish incredible violence in a short period of time with a minimal amount of skill. That is what we must stop.

I'll stop short of describing my ideal US gun legislation, outside of making sure our right to bear arms(and not the animal kind) is still protected.

Roseariea would support the ban of automatic weapons entirely, despite the ridiculous reenforcement of the weapon's lack of sentience as an argument against such a plan.

To Ammeria:

If you will let Schamtek explain the purpose of this resolution:

When are you people going to understand that it the people not the weapon that's doing the killing.

1. It is universally understood that people kill people and that, unless they are under the rule of a totalitarian government people will continue to kill people.

You taking the weapons out of the hands of people will not stop the killing.

2. True. However, the purpose of this resolution is to REDUCE THE AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE FIREARMS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED TO KILL LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE. Schamtek understands that in war automatic weapons are highly capable of defending a country and should be available to a military for defensive purposes (preemptive strikes not necessarily excluded).

In the words of the honorable representative of Douria, guns are an ENABLER. Limiting the availability of these enablers will hopefully lead to a decline (or future deterrent) for even more destructive capabilities, especially the capability to take valuable human life.



To Cookesland:

With proper licensing and registration i don't see why a person with no history or medical record of psychological instability could not have one.

Exactly why Schamtek has decided for a psychological evaluation. Perhaps later in life, said sane person developed a psychological condition and went on a rampage. The removal of an Automatic Weapon would NOT, as logic would state, stop the citizen from killing people. What WOULD happen would be the mitigation of the casualties inflicted by the citizen. The psychological evaluation every five years could possibly deter this person from getting the Automatic Weapon.



To Washington County MD

Our nation intends to oppose this resolution should it come up for a vote. Unfortunately restricting access to automatic weapons--which is good in theory--would also make it more difficult for repressed citizens to resist oppressive dictatorships that are frequently found on the ends of the political spectrum.

Schamtek appreciates your criticism. However, we would appreciate it if the honorable representative from Washington County MD would keep their criticism constructive. You do, however bring up an interesting point. However, it is not our goal to free "repressed citizens ... [of] oppressive dictatorships." We would hope that a peaceful accord could be made between the government and its citizens. Again, Schamtek is trying to limit the availability of Automatic Weapons to those who would use those against innocent human life.

Schamtek therefore thanks the above representatives for their time and constructive criticism and now moves towards redrafting the Restricted Automatic Weapons Proposal.

The following is a new draft for the Restriction of Automatic Weapons Proposal:

NOTING that Automatic weapons should be considered weapons of war that an average citizen cannot control; therefore

DETERMINES that they should be kept out of the hands of psychologically unstable persons or those lacking the ability to control said weapons of war;

HEREBY enacts the following:

1. A permit program is initiated and enforced.

2. Said permit program requires a psychological evaluation AND a firearms test wherein passing or failing is determined by a certified instructor.

3. Every five years said permit expires, and

4. A new permit must be obtained through another psychological evaluation and firearms test.

That still doesn't explicitly allow military and police(and it should or it won't make it). It also still lacks recognition of current automatic weapons laws.

Schamtek is not quite sure what "explicitly allow[ing]" is in regards to the military. Please elaborate. Schamtek is also not sure about current automatic weapons laws.

Perhaps if instead of simply saying that a permit program must exist, the honoured ambassador's draft might state exactly what the permits are to control. At present, the permits might as well be for fishing for all the context the proposal leaves us with. Doing so might also help the ambassador note where he must build in exemptions for nations which currently do not allow civilian ownership. Though it must be noted that with the current draft such nations can at least take heart from the fact that nothing requires them to pay any attention at all to the results of the tests undertaken, nor are they ever required to issue a single permit.

The "Gun Control" category doesn't apply to the police and military -- they're governed by International Security and Global Disarmament.

there's only one way to limit the circulation and availability of personal ordinance of any kind, and that is to simple not mass produce them.

balistic projectile ordinance anyway.

nonlethal, or mostly and or theoreticly nonleathal devices like tasers and and a few other things like that, pepper spray and so on, we don't have a problem with. statisticly the number of citizens who inadvertantly die as a resault of them is very small.

in cameroi we simply do not allow anything that uses and explosive charge to fire a lethal projectile to be mass produced, sold, or imported in wholesale quantities.

we don't outlaw the possession of anything. it is against our constitution to do so. but banning the sale, production or importation in signifigant quantities of such items as a majority of the population deem appropriate to do so, we have found to be entirely sufficient and appropriate.

nor do we see DEADLY force as essential to our defense as a nation. we have a number of other systems and objects, which, well some of them are invariably quite deadly if used as weapons, the're just none that are, designed specificly for that purpose.

and what we do have and use that is intended as weaponry is, for the most part, of the 'not intentionally deadly' variety.

so when we look at restricting something, we look at doing so in ways that don't create opportunity for political abuses, such as planting things on someone, which is one of our main objections to outlawing possession of anything.

and really the best and most effective, possibly only effective way of doing that, is simply not producing whatever is deemed objectionable, in more then personal quantity. which, in reguard to an item, generally means no one is allowed to make more then three of any one objectionable object.

hobbiest still can and do possess, what they make entirely for themselves, and that can be, litterally absolutely anything, provided they can get ahold of the skills and equipment and other resources to make it with.

shake togather kits for objectionable objects, are of course not allowed to be mass produced either. someone who whats such a deadly device litterally has to machine all of the parts themselves. other, of course, then whatever off the shelf sort of items they can incorporate into it. off the shelf items that only exist to serve other, more inocuous uses.

=^^=
.../\...

in cameroi we simply do not allow anything that uses and explosive charge to fire a lethal projectile to be mass produced, sold, or imported in wholesale quantities.

Schamtek would like to point out that explosive charges are not required to project bullets toward targets. Compressed air does rather well.

we don't outlaw the possession of anything. it is against our constitution to do so.

Schamtek would also like to point out that this Proposal will not outlaw anything, merely put a restriction on Automatic Weapons.

But banning the sale, production or importation in significant quantities of such items as a majority of the population deem appropriate to do so, we have found to be entirely sufficient and appropriate...

This is what the Restriction of Automatic Weapons Proposal does.

so when we look at restricting something, we look at doing so in ways that don't create opportunity for political abuses, such as planting things on someone, which is one of our main objections to outlawing possession of anything.

That should be the intent of every Proposal, and is the intent of this one.

Hobbiests still can and do possess what they make entirely for themselves and that can be literally absolutely anything, provided they can get a hold of the skills and equipment and other resources to make it with.

True. However, Schamtek believes that it is the responsibility of the individual government to retain the ability to prevent the conversion of Semi-Automatic Weapons to Automatic Weapons and punish those that would convert the weapons.

The "Gun Control" category doesn't apply to the police and military -- they're governed by International Security and Global Disarmament.

OOC: I tried the "Game Mods Said It Had To Be This Way" argument with people.

If he truly wants to improve it, his language should be concise and exact. That way less people will argue with his points.

IC: Douria cannot agree with these limitations in any fashion or form. Automatic weapons are a guaranteed right I grant my people, lord knows they don't have many.

Shoot first. Then shoot anyone who asks questions.

A permit program is initiated and enforced.


My country will not allow itself to be bound by a resolution which forces the government to recognise a right for individuals to carry firearms.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

If he truly wants to improve it, his language should be concise and exact. That way less people will argue with his points.

Thank you for the input. Here is Draft 3:

NOTING that Automatic weapons should be considered weapons of war that an average citizen cannot control; therefore

DETERMINES that they should be kept out of the hands of psychologically unstable persons or those lacking the ability to control said weapons of war;

HEREBY enacts the following:

1. A permit program restricting the possession of Automatic Weapons is initiated and enforced.

2. Said permit program requires a psychological evaluation AND a firearms test wherein passing or failing is determined by a certified instructor.

3. A permit can only be achieved if the individual passes both the psychological and firearms tests.

4. A permit cannot be given to an individual that already has a valid Automatic Weapon permit.

5. Every five years said permit expires, and

6. A new permit must be obtained through another psychological evaluation and firearms test.

EXCEPTION: Any nation that has already banned Automatic Weapons, or any other type of projectile weapon, outright is hereby excepted from this proposal due to their furthered measures to prevent the loss of human life.

EXCEPTION: Any military or police entity is excepted from this proposal due to their different governing bodies (The International Security and Global Disarmament Divisions of the United Nations).

EXCEPTION: Any nation that has already banned Automatic Weapons, or any other type of projectile weapon, outright is hereby excepted from this proposal due to their furthered measures to prevent the loss of human life.


Aaand... that addresses my concern. Thank you.

Having said that, the phrasing is going to annoy supporters of the "right to bear arms". But I suppose that's inevitable in such a proposal.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

EXCEPTION: Any military or police entity is excepted from this proposal due to their different governing bodies (The International Security and Global Disarmament Divisions of the United Nations).There are no GD or IS "divisions" of the UN; they're just categories under which proposals are submitted. And they don't act as "governing bodies" of military forces; Hack was speaking metaphorically. That said, it's inappropriate to mention Gameplay aspects such as proposal categories in UN proposals, so they're probably best left out.

There are no GD or IS "divisions" of the UN; they're just categories under which proposals are submitted.

Which, in-game, it can be surmised that these are actual divisions of the UN. Let's see what the Moderators say.

Let's see what the Moderators say.

Let's not. You're the players. It's your roleplay. You figure it out.

The Holy Republic of Centeral Anatolia is deeply concerned by the recent wave in crime that has taken place in its country. We've noticed that there has been an ever increasing number of criminals with military grade weapons. We suspect that they're being stolen and sold on the black market by ex-military personel, because of our policy of forced military service. Recently we have increased the budget of our military and police forces, so as to prevent further criminal action and to provide more security for our military equipment, but it has proven to be very costly for our government. We ask that wording be added to your resolution to offer economic incentives and aid to governments seeking to get military grade equipment out of criminal hands. We also request that this resolution be broadened to include all military grade equipment, not just automatic weapons.

Let's not. You're the players. It's your roleplay. You figure it out.

OOC: Oh I'm going to have fun with this.

We ask that wording be added to your resolution to offer economic incentives and aid to governments seeking to get military grade equipment out of criminal hands.

Schamtek requests that the representative from Anatolia specify "economic incentives" and "aid to governments." It is Schamtek's belief that these lie in the hands of the individual national governments.


We also request that this resolution be broadened to include all military grade equipment, not just automatic weapons.

For now, Schamtek sees that it is the responsibility of the national government to protect its military equipment from criminals rather than have the United Nations try to maintain every government's equipment. It would seem a nearly impossible task for the United Nations to log every single individual piece of equipment AND protect it from criminals.

Schamtek requests that the representative from Anatolia specify "economic incentives" and "aid to governments." It is Schamtek's belief that these lie in the hands of the individual national governments.




For now, Schamtek sees that it is the responsibility of the national government to protect its military equipment from criminals rather than have the United Nations try to maintain every government's equipment. It would seem a nearly impossible task for the United Nations to log every single individual piece of equipment AND protect it from criminals.


We suggest that the United Nations provide a percentage of the funding required to more closely regulate military equipment and get military equipment out of the hands of criminals. We further suggest that several programs be run directly by the United Nations in foreign countries, with the purpose of peacefully getting military grade and other firearms out of the hands of civilians. We suggest programs that would allow civilians to trade in their weapons for food, or money, which would be supplied by the United Nations. The establishment of "Guns for Money," and "Guns for Food" programs should make a positive impact.

We also feel that it is the duty of the United Nations to help nations which can not help themselves. Some governments can not track all of the military equipment, atleast not without taking away from other programs, which would include health care and religious institutions.

OCC: I think that we're supposed to assume that the UN has unlimited economic resources and personel, so broadening the terminology to include all military equipment should be okay.

You didn't ask, and probably won't use it but I couldn't resist a rewrite:

DEFINES an automatic weapon as a firearm that automatically fires, extracts, and ejects a cartridge case, and loads a new case, for as long as the trigger of the firearm is held.

NOTING that automatic weapons should be considered weapons of war that an average citizen cannot control; therefore

DETERMINES that they should be kept out of the hands of psychologically unstable persons.

HEREBY enacts the following:

1. A permit program restricting the possession of automatic weapons is initiated and enforced,

2. Said permit program requires a psychological evaluation to be passed by individuals before acquisition of automatic weapons,

3. Establishes the Automatic Weapons International Control Committee(henceforth known as the AWICC) to establish clear psychological standards for the purpose of the evaluation,

4. A permit can only be acquired if the individual passes said psychological evaluation,

5. Said permit expires every five years,

6. A new permit must be obtained in the same manner as the first to continue ownership of automatic weapons,

7. Current permits with regards to automatic weapons are grandfathered under this resolution,

8. Forbids individuals with a history of mental illness from owning automatic weapons.

EXCEPTING: Any nation that maintains stricter laws on the ownership of automatic weapons.

EXCEPTING: Any national military or police entity.

We think the resolution unlovely but workable. We regret to say that we think the Dourian variant even more unlovely and no more workable.

In response to the representative of Central Anatolia's request for UN funding for this program, we would counter by asking for member funding of the UN. If the honoured representative or any others would care to see a copy of the current budget of the UN, we believe that one is kept by the barrel labelled "Fine Yeldan Pickles™" by the entrance to this hall. Observers will note that the UN Gift Shop is currently the largest individual funder of this assembly; should they feel moved to make one, donations may be left in the pickle barrel.

(OOC: or in other words, no, we don't have unlimited funding. In fact, we have pretty much no funding, beyond what a couple of dozen nations have chosen to donate.)

In such a case, we could not possibly condone the financial irresponsibility of setting up a "Cash for Guns" scheme.

We think the resolution unlovely but workable. We regret to say that we think the Dourian variant even more unlovely and no more workable.

In response to the representative of Central Anatolia's request for UN funding for this program, we would counter by asking for member funding of the UN. If the honoured representative or any others would care to see a copy of the current budget of the UN, we believe that one is kept by the barrel labelled "Fine Yeldan Pickles™" by the entrance to this hall. Observers will note that the UN Gift Shop is currently the largest individual funder of this assembly; should they feel moved to make one, donations may be left in the pickle barrel.

(OOC: or in other words, no, we don't have unlimited funding. In fact, we have pretty much no funding, beyond what a couple of dozen nations have chosen to donate.)

In such a case, we could not possibly condone the financial irresponsibility of setting up a "Cash for Guns" scheme.

We recognize that this may pose a problem, but would also like to remind our fellow nations that we live in a globalized world. Whats good for one country, is often good for the rest. You wouldn't want terrorists armed with weapons stolen from the Central Anatolian Army to attack Gobbanium civilians, would you? I'm sure that some of the delegates from richer nations could spare a small percentage of their annual $5,000,000,000 defense budgets to the well being of poorer countries.

We recognize that this may pose a problem, but would also like to remind our fellow nations that we live in a globalized world. Whats good for one country, is often good for the rest. You wouldn't want terrorists armed with weapons stolen from the Central Anatolian Army to attack Gobbanium civilians, would you? I'm sure that some of the delegates from richer nations could spare a small percentage of their annual $5,000,000,000 defense budgets to the well being of poorer countries.

We're sure they could. We're equally sure that those of them who don't already, won't.

We believe this proposed extension to be entirely inappropriate to the subject of the original proposal. The original seeks quite simply to require licenses for the ownership of automatic weaponry where it is available to civilians; let it do that job, and reserve messing with the internal security of nations to a more appropriate resolution.

We're sure they could. We're equally sure that those of them who don't already, won't.

We believe this proposed extension to be entirely inappropriate to the subject of the original proposal. The original seeks quite simply to require licenses for the ownership of automatic weaponry where it is available to civilians; let it do that job, and reserve messing with the internal security of nations to a more appropriate resolution.

The author assumes that the majority of automatic weapons are aquired and owned by law abidding citizens, when infact they are aquired by terrorists and criminal organizations. Permits are not going to solve the problem, the only solution is to attack the problem at its source, and the only way to do this is to provide tools for governments to do so.

But if you still disagree, would you be opposed to co-authoring a resolution on weapon control?

We have no particular interest in co-authoring a resolution on weapon control, and would thus venture to suggest that there are better candidates than ourself for such co-authorship. We wish such a venture well, though we struggle to conceive of tools for governments to safeguard their own weapons stockpiles that said governments do not already possess. We would certainly find it preferable to have such as a separate resolution rather than mixing it with the current admirably focused proposal.

My country will not allow itself to be bound by a resolution which forces our government to limit, restrict or otherwise regulate the rights of its individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

The situation on the Cobdenian Central South West Ranges means that it is common for Europeans in that area to have Vickers or Lewis gun's mounted on the roofs of their bungalows. This is almost a neccessity, especially if the Fraganoo's are having one of their habitual uprisings. Indeed; even in places more remote from these parts it is not uncommon; many don't want to see a repeat of the bloodshed of 1852, when the Native Forces of the South Asian Company rebelled...

The nation of Fail so Hard does support this resolution, but also believes that the UN should play a larger role in this, and that this proposal should be expanded to cover all firearms. If one country has inadequate public funding for weapons control, it's inhabitants would be able to acquire weapons, through black-markets, etc... then these people can export the firearms to neighbouring nations, where the weapons control has already been fully implemented. This causes the neighbouring nation to have a subtle increase in illegaly possesed firearms, causing a ripple effect throughout all bordering nations. The UN does not nessecarily need to provide funding to all countries, just ones with a lower annual revenue.

This proposal should be viewed on a more global scale than national, in order for it to be effective.

Cheers,

The Rogue Nation of Fail so Hard.

The situation on the Cobdenian Central South West Ranges means that it is common for Europeans in that area to have Vickers or Lewis gun's mounted on the roofs of their bungalows. This is almost a neccessity, especially if the Fraganoo's are having one of their habitual uprisings. Indeed; even in places more remote from these parts it is not uncommon; many don't want to see a repeat of the bloodshed of 1852, when the Native Forces of the South Asian Company rebelled...

We would hope that the honoured representative would see the obvious benefits in ensuring that said Europeans are capable of using their Vickers or Lewis guns, and not likely to be a danger to other Europeans. In essence, that is what the heart of the proposal requires be done.