NationStates Jolt Archive

The Issue
Tragedy struck @@NAME@@ today, as a gunman killed three people in a suburban shooting rampage. The community is united in grief, but divided in opinion as to what should be done.

The Debate
1. The strongest voices demand tighter gun controls. "The only way to prevent further atrocities is to take the guns out of the hands of the murderers," says anti-gun campaigner @@RANDOMNAME@@. "There's no justification for them in today's society. We need tighter regulations on who can hold guns, so only our police and military have them."

2. "That's not all we need," says radical left-wing activist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The government should ban all guns outright--even in the police force. This is an opportunity to make @@NAME@@ a totally gun-free state."

3. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," says NRA head honcho @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Is that what we want? Think, people. The answer isn't to ban guns. It's to crack down on those Hollywood movies and computer games that glamorize violence. They're the real criminals."

I have a problem with this issue as it is heavily biased against guns, then makes fun of the media. I found it strange that it lacked a fourth option where you should legalize guns, or literally give them away. Therefore, I would like a discussion and possible amendation (or delete and remake, it seems like in how things work in NS) of this option.

I offer the following suggestion.

[option] 4. "The only reason why the murderer was allowed to gun down so many people in the first place was because the citizenry were not armed themselves," states your CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@ of Ammunation Industries. "If we were to 'encourage' people to arm themselves, then we would not have to worry about psychopaths running around with free reign."
[effect] several dozen citizens die each year due to gun accidents
[stats] Arms manufacturing increases, people become meaner to one another, Law & Order increases

i have metioned this already but people liked the option but i'm not sure you can change an issue once it is in service and i totally agree you can ban guns but where is the give money to the arms maufactoring sector? 8) :?:

Emperor Matthuis

It looks fairly balanced to me.

Tightly regulate - Belgium
Outright ban - UK
Keep them legal and blame something else - US

[quote]The Issue
Tragedy struck @@NAME@@ today, as a gunman killed three people in a suburban shooting rampage. The community is united in grief, but divided in opinion as to what should be done.

The Debate

.. looks good from this end. :)

I agree with Xen, there should be a 4th option that makes access and carrying of guns more allowed (or at least less restrictive. though not quite sure how it would affect the three levels of measurements.

I agree too. Xen's option is really good and fits the issue well and it has always annoyed me that there was no option to just arm everyone with this issue.

[Violet] already said the orginal issues will not be edited.

Will not, or cannot be editted?

- Sovy K.

Will not. I could find the thread she said that in if you want.

Will not.

Feel free to submit a new proposal accomplishing what you desire.

On this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2052590#2052590) thread, she said-

]We wouldn't want to actually rewrite the issues, because then new players wouldn't get to experience the old ones.

But we do have the capability to have issues that never come up more than once, or that, if you choose a particular option, make your nation eligible for another issue. So we can use that to achieve the outcome you want, I think.

Also, now we have a good flow of new issues coming in, the whole repetitiveness thing isn't as much of a problem as it used to be.

We aren't rewriting the issue, we are amending it because it was a poorly thought out issue.

Thus, why I am requesting the amendment. They will experience the old options, just an added one to make the issue more equal.

And why have two similar issues?

- Sovy K.

Is there any way to flag the attention of [violet] or the tech modling about this issue? It would be much appreciated to hear what they have to say about it.

- Sovy K.

Ho-hum, I'll just keep bumping this puppy up until [violet] or the Techling mod takes note of it.

- Sovy K.

I think an amendment wouldn't be so bad. Everyone I've ever talked to always dismisses this issue because they think the three options are dumb. Personally, I'd rather have a re-write of option 3, but Xen's solution isn't that bad either.

I have decided to go back and make some corrections to the suggested text. The changes are limited to just the rewording of the sentences, as well as grammar corrections. I will submit this amendation to the issue after this post.

[option] 4. "The only reason why the butcher was allowed to gun down so many people in the first place was because the citizens were not properly armed themselves," states CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@ of Ammunation Industries. "If we were to force people to arm themselves with, say, our new HJ-300P assault rifle, then we would not have to worry about psychopaths running around with free reign."
[effect] several dozen citizens die each year due to gun accidents
[stats] Arms manufacturing increases, people become meaner to one another, Law & Order increases

- Sovy K.

The left-wing bias on any issues concerning crime is so extreme and pervasive that, unless you share the bias, the only way to deal with these issues is to dismiss them. Any choice other than the leftist one will always be heavily slanted toward negative results.

The left-wing bias on any issues concerning crime is so extreme and pervasive that, unless you share the bias, the only way to deal with these issues is to dismiss them. Any choice other than the leftist one will always be heavily slanted toward negative results.

Hrm.
I think that the issues are slanted towards libertarians.

Only left-wing options produce positive results?
Look at the campaign finance reform issue: If you go with the neo-con option of letting corporations donate large amounts of funds your political freedoms and economy rise, the other options take away political freedoms and lowers economy.

The left-wing bias on any issues concerning crime is so extreme and pervasive that, unless you share the bias, the only way to deal with these issues is to dismiss them. Any choice other than the leftist one will always be heavily slanted toward negative results."Left wing bias" my ass! Most of the socialists with who I have had contact with have to dismiss a great deal of the issues as well. They are just badly constructed- or rather this game is not meant to be as in-depth as we have made it.

Again, I bring to your attention that the old issues will not be edited for anything but spelling and grammar issues. If you want better issues, then please submit them.

Will not.

Feel free to submit a new proposal accomplishing what you desire.

On this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2052590#2052590) thread, [violet] said-

]We wouldn't want to actually rewrite the issues, because then new players wouldn't get to experience the old ones.

But we do have the capability to have issues that never come up more than once, or that, if you choose a particular option, make your nation eligible for another issue. So we can use that to achieve the outcome you want, I think.

Also, now we have a good flow of new issues coming in, the whole repetitiveness thing isn't as much of a problem as it used to be.

There you have it.

Patoxia:

I think that the issues are slanted towards libertarians.

While there are issues that have an option that libertarians would take in spirit, those options are usually presented as if they came from an ultra right-wing group. The Compulsory Donation issue comes to mind. Issues like the one I am trying to amending here, Gunman Kills Three, lack a libertarian option entirely.

Then again, I don't pay too much attention to the issues anymore, and I just skim along them, so what do I know, eh?

The Basenji:

The problem that I am in is that I want to accomplish some things that have been irking me since as early as last year when I signed up. Now, my understanding of the English language may not be perfect, but from what [violet] has said in your quote, I am neither rewriting the issue nor am I breaking with the spirit of her statement since all I am doing is amending an additional option to an issue. Much like how there are amendments to the American constitution, yet I do not believe that it has ever been rewritten. The rest of the issue is left completely intact.

As well, I also do not want to introduce a new issue that is similar to this one.

If you believe that my interpretation of what [violet] means is at fault, I would like to hear your understanding of where I went wrong in my interpretation of what [violet] ment. Or, better yet, get [violet] to say that I am wrong, and will not amend to the issue, and I will retract my nagging about adding to the issue.

- Sovy K.

The left-wing bias on any issues concerning crime is so extreme and pervasive that, unless you share the bias, the only way to deal with these issues is to dismiss them. Any choice other than the leftist one will always be heavily slanted toward negative results.

Hrm.
I think that the issues are slanted towards libertarians.

Only left-wing options produce positive results?
Look at the campaign finance reform issue: If you go with the neo-con option of letting corporations donate large amounts of funds your political freedoms and economy rise, the other options take away political freedoms and lowers economy.

You might have actually paid attention to what I said, you did quote it, after all:The left-wing bias on any issues concerning crime....I said nothing about other kinds of issues, which in many instances seem strongly slanted toward laissez-faire or even supply-side ideas (for instance, regulating monopolies brings economic ruin, while diverting money into failing industries improves the economy).

With crime-related issues, however, the left-wing bias is outstanding. Punishing criminals causes civil (and sometimes political) rights to fall, while causing crime to rise (as if criminals were actually encourage by the prospect of punishment). Redistributing wealth, on the other hand, reduces crime while depressing the economy (in the real world, there is no evidence that it does either).

:oops:
Err. sorry, it was extremely tired and I must have read it wrong, I agree with you then.

As usual, the bumpeth to get this thread noticed.

- Sovy K.

With crime-related issues, however, the left-wing bias is outstanding. Punishing criminals causes civil (and sometimes political) rights to fall, while causing crime to rise (as if criminals were actually encourage by the prospect of punishment). Redistributing wealth, on the other hand, reduces crime while depressing the economy (in the real world, there is no evidence that it does either).

I've noticed this, but is it with just the old issues or does it also include the new, fanmade issues?

Who keeps on bumping this issue?

Who keeps on bumping this thread?

You —and me :!:

Hmmmm... Mmmmm...

Because it is a good idea, that is why I support it. There is no guilt in bumping up a good idea.

- Sovy K.

Hmmmm... Mmmmm...

Because it is a good idea, that is why I support it. There is no guilt in bumping up a good idea.

- Sovy K.


The Gun ownership issue favours guns but it is quite exremist, i just dismiss the gun issue and have compulsory gun ownership :wink:

Sorry, but amending an issue is rewriting it as far as the mods here are concerned. The intent of [violet]'s statement was to say that existing issues would not be changed in any way, other than for spelling or grammar errors. You are never going to get this issue amended, so let this frigging thread die, already! :x

Sorry, but amending an issue is rewriting it as far as the mods here are concerned. The intent of [violet]'s statement was to say that existing issues would not be changed in any way, other than for spelling or grammar errors. You are never going to get this issue amended, so let this frigging thread die, already! :x


Actually it was dieing until you posted on it

I disagree if that is what [violet] ment. The basis of that argument is that they do not want to change the issues since it would not allow the new players to not experience the old issues. Amending the issue does not remove anything from the issue, and therefore, new players will still experience the old issue, just that it has been corrected to be more balanced. Besides, why should you be getting mad, I'm the one wasting time making inane posts to bump this thread up, eh?

- Sovy K.

The original issues WILL NOT be edited, revised, ammended, altered, changed, re-written, or altered in any way, shape, or form except to fix spelling and/or grammatical errors.