NationStates Jolt Archive

Submitted by:The Master Patrick

This Resolution will loosen the bans on arms to further decrease the crime rate within each United Nation Country. The resolution would make a requirement that all nations allow the freedom to bare and to keep arms. This resolution would furthermore give each citizen of every nation the right to carry on them a gun or sword that is not concealed. This would simply reduce the crime rate of every UN nation by making every person able to defend themselves. Thieves, murders and other criminals would no doubt be stopped in their tracks by the thought that the person they were trying to kill or murder was armed and could fight back. So in conclusion we must pass this resolution in order to assure that the criminal rate of each UN nation will be decreased.

"The right to bare and conceal arms at the same time? We're granting rights these days which are logically impossible to exercise? Hmm...

FOR."


Mr. James Marple
Sokratian Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Actually, the easiest way to reduce crime is to slaughter your economy. The more civil rights your nation has, even if the laws are somewhat restricting, the less crime you will experience.

If your nation is experiencing high crime rates, give your people some freedoms. The only problem is that these freedoms are often at the taxpayer's loss... but if it's the taxpayers that want these freedoms to begin with I'm sure that tax rates of 60%+ are acceptable.

Personally my nation has great civil and political freedoms, but the economy is about as strong as a lemonade stand.

If you're looking to pass a resolution for roleplay purposes, it needs to be a well-written document, not just a rant.

"The right to bare and conceal arms at the same time? We're granting rights these days which are logically impossible to exercise? Hmm...

FOR."

:D
I believe these are two separate rights.
Still, laws regarding clothing, particularly in such a specific way, seem a bit ridiculous, and I have no idea how this would prevent crime.

As I stated before, the reason why this proposal would decrease crime rates is that, everyone being allowed to carry a weapon would act as both a physical and mental deterrent against all criminals. (I mean come on if a guy had a sword or whatever I would not even mess with him)

I'd shoot him, personally. :D

Regrettably, even allowing for the homonym error, our answer to the honoured ambassador's poll is "none of the above." We don't have an objection to people keeping arms, with appropriate security measures of course. Using them for practice is naturally encouraged for gun owners, since it instills safety procedures in a controlled environment. Using them for hunting purposes we personally have no objection to provided proper consideration is given to the safety of others, though we believe the UN's unfortunate legislation on animal cruelty may have other things to say on the matter. However the casual bearing of arms anywhere, even in the home, is an invitation to accident and we would rather not condone such.

Besides, as the Wolf Guardians point out, carrying a gun is more likely to get you shot, thereby increasing the crime rate.

"We hope this fails majorly. Forcing civilians to carry guns isn't something that the United Nations should bother itself with."

Three things you need to look at before you seriously consider submitting a proposal are:


Does it already exist? (Check here (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-search/) or here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572).)

What category should it be in? (Check here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10564309&postcount=5).)

What strength should it be? Strong

Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant

Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild

Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.


Why should you bother? Because if you don't, your proposal might not be taken seriously.

The UN regulars are fiendishly good at not taking things seriously.

Regrettably, even allowing for the homonym error, our answer to the honoured ambassador's poll is "none of the above." We don't have an objection to people keeping arms, with appropriate security measures of course. Using them for practice is naturally encouraged for gun owners, since it instills safety procedures in a controlled environment. Using them for hunting purposes we personally have no objection to provided proper consideration is given to the safety of others, though we believe the UN's unfortunate legislation on animal cruelty may have other things to say on the matter. However the casual bearing of arms anywhere, even in the home, is an invitation to accident and we would rather not condone such.

Besides, as the Wolf Guardians point out, carrying a gun is more likely to get you shot, thereby increasing the crime rate.

Blog Waters would like to echo these sentiments (excluding the Animal Cruelty comment, which I have yet to read and therefore have no informed opinion on).

The UN regulars are fiendishly good at not taking things seriously.

OOC: Or taking things entirely too seriously, depending on what kills your proposal fastest.

"We hope this fails majorly. Forcing civilians to carry guns isn't something that the United Nations should bother itself with."

"Point of Information: I believe that the proposal in question would not require civilians to bear arms, bare arms, arm bears, or anything else. Rather, it only requires nations to allow their citizens the right to do so."

Mr. James Marple
Sokratian Ambassador to the UN

Blog Waters would like to echo these sentiments (excluding the Animal Cruelty comment, which I have yet to read and therefore have no informed opinion on).

OOC: bear in mind that Prince Rhodri enjoys hunting a lot, and is therefore atypically unfluffy about animals :-)

What strength should it be?
But bear in mind the "Gun Control" category category doesn't have a Strength subcategory, but rather a "Decision": "Tighten" (or "Relax").

Blog Waters would like to echo these sentiments (excluding the Animal Cruelty comment, which I have yet to read and therefore have no informed opinion on).The Popotan has no real care about this one way or the other.

Recent studies done have shown violent crime rates and hot burglaries to increase over the past decades in many countries who ban guns because ciminials don't care about laws when they break them and they know how to aquire weapons. It's the law-abiding citizen who is then often at their mercy, mercy which they often don't give, after all, that person it a witness.

However it has also made law enforcement more jumpy and trigger-friendly in countries where these rights are allowed.

The Popotan does not care as all its citizens are potential soliders and thus must be able to wield a weapon. Popotan also has elimiated all crime, except some backwater black-market cheese exporting which we are in the process of looking into for illegal selling.

Three things you need to look at before you seriously consider submitting a proposal are:


Does it already exist? (Check here (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-search/) or here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572).)

What category should it be in? (Check here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10564309&postcount=5).)

What strength should it be?


Why should you bother? Because if you don't, your proposal might not be taken seriously.

The UN regulars are fiendishly good at not taking things seriously.

It is in the right category because it to effect the freedom that people have with arms (it gives them the FREEDOM to carry the weapon on their person.) 2nd no it does not exist some things that are sort of like are there, but this is slightly different. 3rd this category does not have a strength like you listed all it has is

OOC: all of which which wouldn't have needed saying if you'd included the information in your original post. It would also have been kind to mention that you've already submitted this, so comments on the drafting (such as "it reads like an essay, not a proposal") won't help any.

As Ardchoille said, if it doesn't look like it should be taken seriously...

As I stated before, the reason why this proposal would decrease crime rates is that, everyone being allowed to carry a weapon would act as both a physical and mental deterrent against all criminals. (I mean come on if a guy had a sword or whatever I would not even mess with him)Thus one is convicted of a barbaric violent crime or has some mental disorder is to be allowed to carry a weapon. This would suggest we turn the wolves free among the herds to feast on them. The only way to end crime is kill off anyone who might commit a crime. Thus world poplution would be reduced to zero them those evil weapons will not kill again. Crimes involving the abuse of ones right to carry a weapon that result in life lost means here one gets to swing from a tall tree with a strong rope around their neck to help them swing a long time. Those that own weapons here have met all requirements to do so and as long as they follow our laws on such ownership will have no problems here. We do not lock citizens up for carring a weapon as long as they obey all our laws even those that say no weapons beyond this point or in this area. We do lock them up when the invade the area of another who selects not to have weapons around them and should the invassion result in a death then we have a hanging... of the murderer.


As for the poll we did not see any that suited our standing on this issue and feel the one on The right to keep and bare arms but not to carry on person. Defeats the reason to have a weapon if one has to open the vault to get it to defend their property from an invader of said property. Then once they get the vault open get into another to get the ammunition to load the weapon. Oh and don't forget to get into the keybox to get the keys to unlock the security lock on the trigger and wire through the barrel.

The Republic of The State of New York is against this measure because this would violate my country's constitution which protects the right to keep and bare arms. It is also allowed by statute for people to have concealed weapons after receiving training.

OOC: Do I have to say it? It's "the right to keep and bear arms." "Baring arms" hardly sounds like the stuff of controversy ... unless you're a woman in Saudi Arabia.