NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an idea for a proposal, but before posting a draft (which would, I imagine, be relatively short and straightforward anyway) I wanted to moot the idea, because I can see some potential problems with it, and therefore I'd like some input on whether the idea is feasible or not. Please, therefore, I'd prefer the comments to be directed to the idea, not general wafflings. If you want to get on a soapbox and shout "Don't tread on me", do it down the corridor.

The proposal would be Gun Control -> Tighten, and would prohibit the sale and ownership of shoulder-launched missile launchers (and related technology) by non-state actors. The reason is that they pose a major risk to civilian aircraft. The proposal could make some concessions to countermeasures as well, but I don't consider it economical or even possible to require all civilian aircraft to use spiral descents, have infrared countermeasure technology, and so on.

I see two major problems.

First, the UN never prohibited civilian ownership of any conventional weaponry. Doing so could prove extremely controversial, given the large 'libertarian' phalanx within the WA. I'm sure people will argue shoulder-launched missile launchers are essential for personal defence against muggers and pickpockets. This is a political problem, so what I'm really asking is: do you think automatic objections to any (WA-mandated) gun control will be insurmountable?

Second, the sizeable number of non-WA members create certain problems. Obviously, the proposal can be written in such a way as to prohibit imports, or use by proxy, but there remains the issue of international flight. This is a policy problem: will the proposal be worthwhile, even if it doesn't protect (on average) half to two-thirds of international flights even where one location IS in the WA?

Any thoughts on the matter are greatly appreciated.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Obviously, this is also a real world issue, but I don't think it's completely inappropriate in an in-game context. But, please keep comments in-character where possible, because some of the practical difficulties of the real world won't apply here, and some new ones will.

An interesting idea.

Are there any nations within the WA where such weapons are legitimately used for hunting purposes? I vaguely seem to recall some mention of this in connection with Prince Rhodri's activities...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson
(not expressing an official viewpoint at this stage)

Oh, please (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZcACaW9vwg4) - hunting, using surface-to-air missiles? Unless they're hunting flying, Kevlar-reinforced killer whales, this won't affect hunters. Though I personally rather resent 'hunting' being invoked as a catch-call opposition to any measure of gun control, that's an argument for another time.

-- Samantha Benson

Oh, please (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZcACaW9vwg4) - hunting, using surface-to-air missiles? Unless they're hunting flying, Kevlar-reinforced killer whales, this won't affect hunters.

Dragons, I think it was...

Although we do not like weapons in general, we do not think this is a good idea. The purpose is to get safer air transport, or not?
So it is better to think about a proposal on that. (Something in the way that a nation needs to support safety on their air.) Weather they allow selling balloons, rockets or plastic bottles with water to the population seems not so important.

Our nation doesn't have a military force. But we do have trained our civilians in self defence. Everywhere enough people live in our nation there are stockpiles of weapons guarded by a small police force. In a case some nation attacks us, those weapons, including missiles to air rockets are being spread under the population to give the enemy a warm welcome.

So if these weapons are not allowed in civilian forces, we will have a big problem defending our nation.

We will happily wait for a good proposal and will give some import to strengthen it.

Greetings,
Cocoamok

Although we do not like weapons in general, we do not think this is a good idea. The purpose is to get safer air transport, or not?
So it is better to think about a proposal on that. (Something in the way that a nation needs to support safety on their air.) Weather they allow selling balloons, rockets or plastic bottles with water to the population seems not so important.I have already stated why not: because it's not economical to require every airplane to be outfitted with countermeaures that are, anyway, of doubtful efficacy. I agree that perhaps there should be requirements for measures to increase survivability in case of an actual hit, but outfitting thousands of aircraft with direct infrared countermeasures would be of exorbitant (no pun intended) cost.
Our nation doesn't have a military force. But we do have trained our civilians in self defence. Everywhere enough people live in our nation there are stockpiles of weapons guarded by a small police force. In a case some nation attacks us, those weapons, including missiles to air rockets are being spread under the population to give the enemy a warm welcome.Well, in that case, offensive to your anarchist principles as it might seem, they are acting as a military force. Your 'home guard' is a state actor, and I am certainly not suggesting we prohibit non-civilian use of these weapons, which I agree have perfectly valid military applications.

-- Samantha Benson

To be perfectly honest, would this resolution even help in most situations? The maximum ceiling of a portable rocket launcher isn't nearly high enough to reach the cruising altitude of most civilian airliners, and in any case, I can't think off the top of my head of any situation in which a national government encourages or even permits citizens to have portable SAM batteries and/or fire them at passing aircraft. This strikes me as similar to a UN resolution banning murder; sane nations almost certainly prohibit it already, and the insane ones probably aren't member nations anyway.

To be perfectly honest, would this resolution even help in most situations? The maximum ceiling of a portable rocket launcher isn't nearly high enough to reach the cruising altitude of most civilian airliners, and in any case, I can't think off the top of my head of any situation in which a national government encourages or even permits citizens to have portable SAM batteries and/or fire them at passing aircraft. This strikes me as similar to a UN resolution banning murder; sane nations almost certainly prohibit it already, and the insane ones probably aren't member nations anyway.
Not the cruising altitude, but planes have to land and take off. During take-off, descent, they can be within range for as long as 25 miles.

You're right that many nations presumably do not allow the ownership of such weapons, but if it helps just a little, it seems worthwhile, given the danger of the threat. Clearly, this won't eliminate terrorism tomorrow morning, but it could provide one useful plank towards doing so. A key element is probably going to have to be the illicit arms trade, because while many nations don't allow civilians to own such weapons, they might allow unscrupulous arms brokers to obtain such weapons.

-- Samantha Benson

I am sick of these hippies trying to hamstring our militaries, it's why I am glad I'll never be a WA member state.

Dragons, I think it was...

It was. Frankly though, you could probably get popular support for this in Gobbannium, even if His Nibs would be dead set against it. Dragons are considered an endangered species locally, and a cull is only authorised when one starts threatening a population centre. It's about a once-a-decade event. Really, it's the sort of thing that should be being handled by trained professionals, or "the army" as I like to call them.

Just don't tell him I said that.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I think we need to address the relative need of such weapons in the first place. I don't think this is a case of "if you outlaw shoulder-launched RPGs, only outlaws will have should-launched RPGs." Perhaps limitations on the range, explosive/penetrating power, etc. would be more appropriate for those survivalist phalanxers than out and out outlawing.

For example- weapons for civilian use must be unable to penetrate or disable commercial passenger aircraft, or some such thing. I don't include, say, a single-engine Cessna because pretty much anything can bring one of those puppies down.

This, though, would be fairly hard to maintain and qualify...

Registration and restriction of sale could be the best bet. Requiring background checks, outlawing sale to known terrorist/violent organizations or groups, registration and inventory of weapons, database of owners, proof of transaction... It would be the only way to mollify the opposition, I think.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador

The proposal would be Gun Control -> Tighten, and would prohibit the sale and ownership of shoulder-launched missile launchers (and related technology) by non-state actors.Er...

I don't know if I would consider rocket-launchers to be "firearms". They're military hardware. I understand that you're dealing with military hardware in the hands of civilians, and I appreciate that, but I'm not fully comfortable with the category; if Gun Control should be bound by targeted persons, bound by weapon classification, or bound by both.

Honestly, I could see this as International Security more than Gun Control.

There are bad sides and good sides of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Foreign_involvement_and_aid_to_the_mujahideen), depending on your point of view.

Technically a guerrilla force would need some defining, unless you want to ban that too.

we of Axmanland have a strong and thriving arms manufacturing industry and an extremely relaxed attitude to our citizens owning very very deadly weapons,after all in a country where drug laws are more relaxed than a dead sloth their are many people who enjoy taking anything from assault rifles to field artillery into the countryside to annihilate anything cute furry or delicious they can find.

As such you might expect us to be totally against this legislation however as the Eternal king and his many princes often travel by air and after hearing the wise and measured response from our respected delegate from Snefaldia we have a potentially constructive suggestion to make.

the thing that makes shoulder mounted weapons so very dangerous to aircraft isn't the explosive yield but the guidance/target lock (heat seeking radar guiding etc)
if they were removed from all munitions sold into private hands then paranoid madman can still have heavily armed populaces and lets face it guidance systems just aren't "sporting" when hunting small game anyway.:D

Another way to to compromise between the crazy survivalist nations and your resolution could be to limit the resolution in effect to a ban inside a certain area surrounding established airports and airfields. The absolute maximum range of a stinger is 8 kilometers, which isn't unreasonable for a perimeter. Of course, other nations may have developed or claimed to have developed missile launchers with longer ranges, so something more along the lines of ten to twelve kilometers might be better. Not that this is probably necessary; if this resolution can get approved, it will probably be accepted as is.

"Moral Absolutism prefers the use of hand-to-hand combat and defenestration over firearms and ordnance. Use your bare hands; it's what I did when an Absolutist who escaped from a mental ward tried to assault me. After hearing about it, most WA delegates and national representatives give me a wide berth in the halls."

-Absolutist Ambassador No. 235.

I am sick of these hippies trying to hamstring our militaries, it's why I am glad I'll never be a WA member state.

No doubt we should be glad of that as well, if that was your major contribution.

In any event, we also like the idea of limiting the ban to areas within a certain maximum range of airfields. This could represent a good compromise over banning such weapons outright, and we also feel the maximum effective range of such weapons would be easier to determine than any estimation of explosive power or destructive capability.

We're also concerned that any attempt to legislate restrictions concerning sale of such weapons, though one we'd support in practice, might bring out the "but it's mah gawd-given right to own whatever weapon I damn well please" crowd, thus making such a resolution harder to pass.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

This bill should not be passed. Smaller countries who rely on a strong military need shoulder fired weapons to attack vehicular assaults. If this bill is passed there should be something mentioned about the potential increase of anti armor vehicle production or increased militant use of anti armor rounds.

This bill should not be passed. Smaller countries who rely on a strong military need shoulder fired weapons to attack vehicular assaults. If this bill is passed there should be something mentioned about the potential increase of anti armor vehicle production or increased militant use of anti armor rounds.

Now read what's been written. This is about civilian ownership of shoulder-mounted weapons, not military ownership.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

It may be worth exploring this proposal, but in a wider context. Something along the lines of restricting the sale of military weaponry to civilians in general. Here would be a possible set-up...

1. Reasons for the proposal

2. Restricts the selling of military weaponry to " the other nation"-authorized purchasers

3. Requires using an export license given only after due-diligence

4. Exception for non-usable items for historical, cultural, scientific, and collecting uses

It would probably be easier to get something like this passed if you focus on a category instead of a specific item. It allows a nation to decide that an item isn't a military weapon - but the purchasing country also has a say in that as well (otherwise that group probably won't be authorized to purchase the gear). There will be an audit trail by the export license (showing good faith, or lack thereof) and allows for those that collect war memorabilia.

Thoughts? Comments?

This is a much better way to go, I think. We can frame this as a larger-picture "Non-proliferation of military hardware" resolution that prevents (or attempts to prevent) military-grade hardware from falling into the hands of the people who don't really need to be running around with surface-to-air missiles.

I would want to avoid banning sale to civilians, per se, not because I think everyone has a right to two kids, dog, house, and rocket launcher; but rather focus on non-state actors, terrorist groups, and criminal organizations. We can include civilians under non-state actors, providing exceptions for collectors, agents of sale/production, museums, firing ranges, etc.

I do know, though, that my own people would desire to see language emphasising the right of the people to self-defense, within the bounds of collective security, of course.

Nemö Taranton
Ambassador

well now i know what it is about. I still am against it, why? because, what of countries with a civilian defence corps or countries who are under constant attack? If instituted than at least allow limited sales of these weapons to civilians in times of invasion.

well now i know what it is about. I still am against it, why? because, what of countries with a civilian defence corps or countries who are under constant attack? If instituted than at least allow limited sales of these weapons to civilians in times of invasion.

Again, those situations fall under the concept of "state actors". A civilian defense corps is acting as an arm of the state military. Civilians taking up arms to defend against an invader or aggressor are acting as arms of the state military. They would not be affected.

This proposal idea, if I am following the conversation correctly, would apply to guys who want to hunt ducks using Stinger missiles, not to people defending their country.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Again, those situations fall under the concept of "state actors". A civilian defense corps is acting as an arm of the state military. Civilians taking up arms to defend against an invader or aggressor are acting as arms of the state military. They would not be affected.

This proposal idea, if I am following the conversation correctly, would apply to guys who want to hunt ducks using Stinger missiles, not to people defending their country.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Or to those supporting terrorism or using missiles to blow airliners out of the sky.

Or to those supporting terrorism or using missiles to blow airliners out of the sky.

Valid point. I forgot to mention that, which is actually a graver concern.

well then, seeing as how i now fully understand it, i must say i'm with it.Who needs armed terrorists running amok and there are potentially dangerous civilians such as the mentally disturbed or vengeful spirits.

we of Axmanland would be wary of expanding this bill to cover all military grade weapons, after all who is to say what level of lethality constitutes "military" grade anyway.

We would be prepared to support a bill witch included, exclusion zones ,removal of guidance systems and banning any civilian "intent on causing harm or death to other human beings with said weapon" from owning them.

however we would be unable to support a bill that limited a citizens right to own such weapons as our Eternal King believes that in a nation where all adults serve five years of compulsory military service its good for our citizens to remain familiar with all developments in weapon design and handling so they are ready to spring into action and defend our fair country at a moments notice.

In your case, you'd probably be covered by the 'agent' clause in the proposal. If your citizenry is expected to be up-to-date on the latest ground-to-air missiles, jet fighter systems, and RPGs then you're probably going to be considered in a legalistic way as some kind of reserve or civil defense force.

I also think it's going to be pretty difficult to accidentally confuse military grade weapons with civilian grade weapons unless you go out and try to do just that. Stinger missiles aren't really necessary to go out and kill Bambie in hunting season, after all. Nor are hand grenades generally considered a normal component of a fishing tackle box.

Also - this would be covered by any export license with due diligence requirement. Your government would have to approve my nation selling you the latest Stinger missile to go deer hunting, and my nation would be on record as saying that we consider such an item to be a civilian grade weapon. Diplomatic and political RP will correct the situation soon enough, and if that doesn't fail we all have our I.G.N.O.R.E cannons set on heavy stun for those cases.

I haven't abandoned this idea, and many thanks for all the comments; I'm going to rethink it over the course of the week. I probably will change the category, but I'm a bit more reluctant to expand it to all military weaponry, because I think the military technology of different nations will vary too much.

Nor are hand grenades generally considered a normal component of a fishing tackle box. You say that, but you ever googled it?

Anyhow, I agree with the sentiments of the rep from Quod - if someone else really wants to tackle other categories of ordanance then so be it.

I would however suggest that it explicitly makes clear that this proposal refers to rocket propelled grenade launchers (RPG's) in addition to shoulder launched missile devices. I know it's been hinted in the opening post, and we are yet to see a draft, but it is worthy of mention.

Er...

I don't know if I would consider rocket-launchers to be "firearms". They're military hardware. I understand that you're dealing with military hardware in the hands of civilians, and I appreciate that, but I'm not fully comfortable with the category; if Gun Control should be bound by targeted persons, bound by weapon classification, or bound by both.

Honestly, I could see this as International Security more than Gun Control.

What are the secondary impacts of the International Security and Gun Control categories. I'm assuming that Gun Control literally changes a gun ownership stat, while IS merely increases military budgets.

In this case, the goal is to essentially restrict private citizens from owning rockets. Military budgets aren't altered (directly).

If I had a vote (which I know I don't exactly), I'd say go ahead and turn this category into something beyond its original scope (which I think was literally gun ownership). If we do, what sort of mess would this create? <-- not that I want a mess, but if it wouldn't muddy things too much, it might be a good thing. :)

IC:
Mikitivity strongly supports this idea.

What are the secondary impacts of the International Security and Gun Control categories. I'm assuming that Gun Control literally changes a gun ownership stat, while IS merely increases military budgets.Oh, like I'd tell you that :p

However, those two categories are pretty gosh darn straight forward.

Oh, like I'd tell you that :p

Hey, just as it is your job never to tell, I figure I have a duty to always ask. ;)


However, those two categories are pretty gosh darn straight forward.

Danke! :)

well.. seeming as though most people mis-interpet the second amendment of the united states constitution.

i have to vote no on this idea.


the second amendment was designed for a people to never be less capable of defending themselves against an enemy than thier "protectors".

it was designed so that the people would always have the right, and ability to defend themselves against an oppressor.

the oppressor being, any government, including that of the united states.

true, those founding fathers didn't anticipate rocket launchers or aircraft carriers or automatic weapons. but then, they didn't anticipate the government having those types of weapons either.

their intent, which you can deduce from the many their many writings outside the constitution and bill of rights. was to keep the people strong, so that the government could never oppress them.

to keep us on an equal military level, as our government.

so, in light of those brave men. i say this is a bad proposal.

Fair enough. Proposal idea abandoned.