We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: LBSC Initiative 08
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2084
Description[?]:
| Because when a fellow police officer needs to tell the wife of her husband's fate, he should never have to say that if her husband had something to protect himself from a drug-powered madman, he may have had a chance. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Current: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Proposed: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:55:31, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Chinkopodian Economic Democrats | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 08 |
| Message | Well, non-lethal weapons are enough to protet oneself. Some non-lethal weapons can knock people out instantly, for example. If a man with a knife is running towards you, weapons such as this may be even more effective than standard firearms - with a gun, sometimes one bullet is not enough to stop them in time. So non-lethal weapons are jusdt as effective as standard firearms, Also, let's say a policeman with a gun is walking down the road and he sees someone with another gun aimed at him. Knowing that the man might kill him, he shoots the man (this is 'OK' with self-defense laws). The bullet happens to hit the man square in the heart, and he dies. However, on closer inspection, the policeman finds out that it was a toy, a replica gun wielded by a drunkard who was just having a laugh in pointing it at the police officer. With a non-lethal weapon, the policeman could have eliminated the threat without killing the man, With standard firearms, a policeman could kill or mortally injure a man - and in this case our policeman did. That is why non-lethal weapons are better than standard firearms. They protect someone just as well, they just don't kill the person. |
| Date | 15:43:13, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 08 |
| Message | ....You cannot possibly expect me to buy a once-in-a-lifetime scenario. |
| Date | 23:38:57, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian party | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 08 |
| Message | Once in a lifetime? not even... Rare cases like the shoot-out wherever it was SPECAILISTS will be called in. |
| Date | 23:39:21, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian party | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 08 |
| Message | And I resent the drug reference. |
| Date | 10:02:59, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Chinkopodian Economic Democrats | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 08 |
| Message | Actually, that situation is far from a once-in-a-lifetime scenario. If you're talking about the man dying, then why don't you stick with the non-lethal weapons? Because standard firearms are lethal. The only difference is in the 'scare factor'. Otherwise non-lethal weapons can be just as effective. VMHTY, I don't understand your first point.... |
| Date | 00:08:02, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian party | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 08 |
| Message | That's what we resolved, that this bill doesn't apply to specialists. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 124 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 533 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 93 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger |