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: Firearms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal 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: April 2362
Description[?]:
| A bill to grant greater freedom to the individual, and to add another check and balance to government power. It is absolutely critical in a free and democratic society to allow the use of firearms with few restrictions. A ban on firearms violates due process, and is an act of dictatorship. This bill condems firearm bans. Amendment: The Government shall provide safety programmes/classes to encourage safe use of firearms, too anyone that wishes it. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Individuals are not permitted to own firearms under any circumstances.
Current: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Proposed: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:12:04, February 15, 2007 CET | From |  Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin |
| Date | 06:45:37, February 15, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | Full support. ooc: Keep the ooc quotes out of debate. I got berated for using a Thomas Jefferson quotes many moons ago when attempting to introduce similar legislation. |
| Date | 06:49:35, February 15, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | Thank you for your support. I will keep your suggestion in mind for the future. I am rather new here. |
| Date | 09:20:17, February 15, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | It is absolutely critical in a free and democractic society that people actually feel safe and allowing the ownership of firearms only increases tension and a level of fear within the populace that, rather than providing a check or balance against government power, actually increases government hold over the people as the government is forced by the people to place others under stricter surveillance to guarantee that firearms are not used criminally. If you believe that standard firearms could ever be used against the government and actually overthrow one then you are sorely mistaken. We must also consider the risks ot our police in the event of people owning firearms, not to mention those innocents around people owning and using such weapons. The ownership of firearms merely increases criminality by making such acts easier to carry out, increases risks to the general public and our security services attempting to protect those people and increases the risks of personnal injury through misuse of such equipment. This bill is foolish, badly considered, and would only harm this Country. ooc: Would like to support the CSP on the RW quotes and try not to use shorthand in bill descriptors (i.e. gov't). Apart from that, welcome to the war! :-) |
| Date | 20:44:36, February 15, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "We must also consider the risks ot our police in the event of people owning firearms, not to mention those innocents around people owning and using such weapons." Criminals already have weapons. A criminal is someone who breaks the law, so why would they adhere gun control measures? Denying weapons to law-abiding citizens offers protection from those who illegally acquire arms. Also firearms serve as strong deterrents. If a rapist wants to brutalize a lone woman at night, he may think twice if there's the possibility that she's packing heat. "...increases the risks of personnal injury through misuse of such equipment." Good point. Perhaps the Liberals would like to act a provision to this legislation mandating firearm safety courses for those who wish to purchase a gun as well as enacting other safety measures (e.g. requiring child-safety locks for those with children, etc.). |
| Date | 23:13:20, February 15, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "It is absolutely critical in a free and democractic society that people actually feel safe" So you value safety over liberty? What was it that Ben Franklin said that the extreme left always loves to quote? "allowing the ownership of firearms only increases tension and a level of fear within the populace that, rather than providing a check or balance against government power, actually increases government hold over the people as the government is forced by the people to place others under stricter surveillance to guarantee that firearms are not used criminally." I don't understand your increases level of fear comment. I'd feel far safer without the gov't monopoly on firearms. I don't understand how it would "force" the gov't to put people under surveillance either. Afterall there is no guarantee that any manner of different inaniment objects being used criminally either. A motor vehicle can be just as dangerous, I would argue even more, than a fully automatic rifle. I also think you underestimate the power of guerilla warfare, It is often very successful against modern armies. The point is that the private ownership of firearms is moreso a deterent than having a total ban on firearms at the very least. "Good point. Perhaps the Liberals would like to act a provision to this legislation mandating firearm safety courses for those who wish to purchase a gun as well as enacting other safety measures (e.g. requiring child-safety locks for those with children, etc.)." On principal I could not support that. I think that would also violate due process. Such measures (like a gun ban) assumes you are going to do something wrong before it even happens. Perhaps have some funding towards safety programs and the like, but not have it required? That coupled with harsh penalties on misuse of firearms should be good, no? |
| Date | 00:41:27, February 16, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "On principal I could not support that. I think that would also violate due process." What the heck does this have to do with the due process of law? Anyways, there is nothing overly strict about ensuring the security of the gun users. No one should be able to purchase a firearm without knowing how to use its safety, properly clean it, etc. |
| Date | 01:15:14, February 16, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | It violates due process of law because it assumes you are guilty of something before said act has been committed. |
| Date | 10:45:04, February 16, 2007 CET | From | Hobrazia Democrats | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | We will not support this |
| Date | 14:49:55, February 16, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "So you value safety over liberty?" Yes. We would much rather be able to walk down the street without fear than feel the need to cower inside holding a semi-automatic rifle to our chest for "protection". "What was it that Ben Franklin said that the extreme left always loves to quote?" Who is this Ben Franklin to whom you are referring? "I don't understand your increases level of fear comment. I'd feel far safer without the gov't monopoly on firearms. I don't understand how it would "force" the gov't to put people under surveillance either. Afterall there is no guarantee that any manner of different inaniment objects being used criminally either. A motor vehicle can be just as dangerous, I would argue even more, than a fully automatic rifle." It's quite simple. If person A owns a gun then person B needs a gun to protect them from person A. Because both person A and B have guns then person C also feels the need to own a gun. Person A, on seeing that persons B and C are both armed now upgrades their weapon in order to maintain an advantage over them. Upon seeing this person B upgrades their weapon in order to counter person A and maintain an advantage over person C. Repeat ad nauseum. Now, there is no proof that any of the above are criminals, but the fear induced in any one of them because there is now the risk that any one of them has an advantage through firepower leads to fear. Fear leads to accidents which in turn lead to problems within society. The surveillance would be requested by any one of the above, or even person D who has no weapon, as they are all concerned with each other and so unable to maintain contact with each other at all times so they request government intervention to guarantee their safety against each other moreso than their limited resources can already cope with. The motor vehicle point isn't a good analogy. I can't kill someone with a car from over 50 yards. We do not underestimate the use of guerilla warfare but within towns, cities, villages, sending a tank or a plane in is going to do more than a guy with a shot gun. "Perhaps have some funding towards safety programs and the like, but not have it required? That coupled with harsh penalties on misuse of firearms should be good, no?" No. What's the point of having programmes that aren't going to be used? If people want to own a gun then they should know how to use it safely and know the dangers inherent in owning such a weapon. "Criminals already have weapons. A criminal is someone who breaks the law, so why would they adhere gun control measures?" It's got very little to do with obeying the letter of the law, but current laws would make it more diffficult for criminals to get hold of large weapons without being spotted. Also, under current laws, if a gun is seen then that person is breaking the law and is arrested rather than the problems inherent in "Well, they had a gun but how were we supposed to know they might use it?" "Denying weapons to law-abiding citizens offers protection from those who illegally acquire arms" It offers a false feeling of security, not an actual one. "If a rapist wants to brutalize a lone woman at night, he may think twice if there's the possibility that she's packing heat." If a rapist were to brutalise a lone woman you can guarantee that they wouldn't just allow her the chance of pulling a gun out of her pocket/purse/knickers. |
| Date | 01:28:21, February 17, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "Yes. We would much rather be able to walk down the street without fear than feel the need to cower inside holding a semi-automatic rifle to our chest for "protection"" This is tyrannical thinking and sets a bad precedent. Should we lock anyone up because it makes us "feel" safer? "It's quite simple. If person A owns a gun then person B needs a gun to protect them from person A. Because both person A and B have guns then person C also feels the need to own a gun. Person A, on seeing that persons B and C are both armed now upgrades their weapon in order to maintain an advantage over them. Upon seeing this person B upgrades their weapon in order to counter person A and maintain an advantage over person C. Repeat ad nauseum. Now, there is no proof that any of the above are criminals, but the fear induced in any one of them because there is now the risk that any one of them has an advantage through firepower leads to fear. Fear leads to accidents which in turn lead to problems within society. The surveillance would be requested by any one of the above, or even person D who has no weapon, as they are all concerned with each other and so unable to maintain contact with each other at all times so they request government intervention to guarantee their safety against each other moreso than their limited resources can already cope with." I really do not see your point. Okay maybe people will want to have the gov't surveil others...so what? That doesn't necessitate that the gov't should, or would. If you are worried about government use of surveillance, then craft your own bill that adresses that concern. "The motor vehicle point isn't a good analogy. I can't kill someone with a car from over 50 yards." You can run them over fairly quickly though. And the chases themselves can go on for a while, and lots of people get hurt. "No. What's the point of having programmes that aren't going to be used?" Because there will be no excuses for when something bad happens and makes it easier to assign blame. "If people want to own a gun then they should know how to use it safely and know the dangers inherent in owning such a weapon." I totally agree. However my point is that if they do buy a weapon and not know anything of safety it would be from their own stupidity. And if something should go wrong we can give them harsh penalties for their crimes that will help deterr others from following in their footsteps. A licencing program (Which the Christian Socialists Party's suggestion would require), won't stop people from being stupid either. Look at drivers licencing, hasn't stopped bad drivers from being on the road has it? |
| Date | 16:38:57, February 17, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "This is tyrannical thinking and sets a bad precedent." - No, this considering what is best for society as a whole rather then a vocal minority. We are not imposing single party dictatorship what we are doing is our job, that of protecting our people from harm. It's what responsible governments do. "Should we lock anyone up because it makes us "feel" safer?" - Depends on whether they are a public risk. "If you are worried about government use of surveillance, then craft your own bill that adresses that concern." - We're not in the least bit concerned about government surveillance, what we're concerned about is joe public running around with semi-automatic weapons because they have a "right". If they have a right to own a weapon that is designed to kill should we not also have a right to guarantee that they don't use it against us? And as no amount of government telling people "please don't do that" will have any effect of people the government must act in order to stop those things from occuring. As the easiest way of reducing people being killed is to remove the weapons from people then it is the governments responsiblity to do that. "You can run them over fairly quickly though. And the chases themselves can go on for a while, and lots of people get hurt." - Indeed, but I can't hit and kill multiple people from a distance with them having no chance of avoiding me. Also, once a car runs out of fuel it's pretty useless. Once a gun runs out of bullets you either re-load it (which takes seconds) or you use it as a club. Now, which is the more dangerous? "Because there will be no excuses for when something bad happens and makes it easier to assign blame." - And yet, if none of these people have guns you also know who to blame. Moreover, if you aren't going to force people to use these programmes the defence "I didn't know it would do that" holds as there is nothing mandating that these people who would, under this foolish law, own these weapons need any knowledge of how to use them. "However my point is that if they do buy a weapon and not know anything of safety it would be from their own stupidity." - And yet it would be the government who would be placed under the spotlight and under the raft of blame from the people as we have it within our power to make sure these people know how to use the weapons safely but instead we say "well, it's not nice to tell people what to do". People are unherently stupid and will do stupid things. It is up to us to protect others from their stupidity. "A licencing program (Which the Christian Socialists Party's suggestion would require), won't stop people from being stupid either. Look at drivers licencing, hasn't stopped bad drivers from being on the road has it?" - It won't, but drivers licensing has guaranteed that there aren't as many stupid people on the roads and so making sure that we have less accidents than we would otherwise have. Allowing people the ability to kill indisciminantly and actually allowing them the ability to get hold of such a thing is pure stupidity on our part. Whilst we can never guarantee the complete removal of all firearms from the street it is a much better policy to try and remove as many as we possibly can to protect the safety of our people and those travelling to this Country than it is to allow their use. As soon as you allow people to own these weapons it forces us to arm our police in order to protect them. An armed police force makes people less likely to want to approach them making their jobs ever harder whilst also giving people an ability, through the use of these weapons, to take the law into their own hands. This bill sets a dangerous precedent and will lead to increases in crime rather than maintaining the security of our nation. |
| Date | 22:57:29, February 17, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "No, this considering what is best for society as a whole rather then a vocal minority." I'm sure manny tyrants in the past have used this as a justification to usurp liberty. In fact I can think of several. "Depends on whether they are a public risk." And who should decide this? What's the next public risk? Jews? "We're not in the least bit concerned about government surveillance, what we're concerned about is joe public running around with semi-automatic weapons because they have a "right". If they have a right to own a weapon that is designed to kill should we not also have a right to guarantee that they don't use it against us? And as no amount of government telling people "please don't do that" will have any effect of people the government must act in order to stop those things from occuring. As the easiest way of reducing people being killed is to remove the weapons from people then it is the governments responsiblity to do that." I don't see how this is in any way contradictory with our policy. You see, simply owning a gun does not necessitate it's use against other individuals. A firearm is an inanimate object. If it can be proven that someone is going to use one with ill intent, we support going after such individuals. But this party will not support violations of due process by punishing everyone for the misdeeds of the few. "Indeed, but I can't hit and kill multiple people from a distance with them having no chance of avoiding me. Also, once a car runs out of fuel it's pretty useless. Once a gun runs out of bullets you either re-load it (which takes seconds) or you use it as a club. Now, which is the more dangerous?" You can drive for hours on a full tank of gas, and can kill multiple people at once from a distance.. Moot point. "And yet, if none of these people have guns you also know who to blame." That's if you accept the notion that gun control reduces the number of guns around. "Moreover, if you aren't going to force people to use these programmes the defence "I didn't know it would do that" holds as there is nothing mandating that these people who would, under this foolish law, own these weapons need any knowledge of how to use them." Then raise public awareness of firearms use! Don't be lazy! "And yet it would be the government who would be placed under the spotlight and under the raft of blame from the people as we have it within our power to make sure these people know how to use the weapons safely but instead we say "well, it's not nice to tell people what to do". People are unherently stupid and will do stupid things. It is up to us to protect others from their stupidity." Exept it doesn't do anything of the sort. Firearms use is higher with gun control than without. "It won't, but drivers licensing has guaranteed that there aren't as many stupid people on the roads and so making sure that we have less accidents than we would otherwise have." I sincerly doubt this. It's unbelievable how many bad drivers there are on the road. "Allowing people the ability to kill indisciminantly and actually allowing them the ability to get hold of such a thing is pure stupidity on our part." I do not see how this bill allows people to kill indiscriminatly. It is not as if we are legalizing murder here. |
| Date | 00:12:10, February 18, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "I'm sure manny tyrants in the past have used this as a justification to usurp liberty." It is possible, but as this Country hold democratic elections on a regular basis, and due to the nature of our democracy forcing parties to operate in government with others, it makes operating a tyrannical government nigh on impossible. "What's the next public risk? Jews?" - Not unless said Jew is carrying a weapon capable of killing any number of people around with them, no. "If it can be proven that someone is going to use one with ill intent, we support going after such individuals." - And yet you would allow people with a criminal record to purchase a weapon. It is quite likely they would use this weapon for criminal intent, but you do not put measures in place to stop them. This is playing with peoples lives and we would rather be hated for not allowing people to own weapons rather than risk the lives of our children. "You can drive for hours on a full tank of gas, and can kill multiple people at once from a distance.. Moot point." - But which is easier to stop. A person in a car which has multiple ways of disabling it but once stopped is of no risk to anyone, or a person in a building with a weapon that can hit a person over a distance that they have no chance of seeing let alone avoiding. "That's if you accept the notion that gun control reduces the number of guns around." - Which we do, as does the majority of evidence. "Then raise public awareness of firearms use! Don't be lazy!" - Raising public awareness isn't the difficult part. Getting people to actually follow the rules laid down by the programmes is as we have no way of making people attend. "Exept it doesn't do anything of the sort. Firearms use is higher with gun control than without." - Really? So in a Country without guns people will be using firearms more than a Country with... that doesn't even make sense. That's like saying "a Country without electricity use more light bulbs than one with". "I sincerly doubt this. It's unbelievable how many bad drivers there are on the road." - You doubt that people who are unable to pass their driving tests and so are then unable to drive doesn't reduce the number of bad drivers on the road? There may well be more than you would like, but the fact remains that there would be more if there was no test. "I do not see how this bill allows people to kill indiscriminatly. It is not as if we are legalizing murder here." - Not yet, but then isn't that a right people should have? We would also point out that we did not say people will kill indiscriminantly, but that is allows people the ability to, a distinct difference I'm sure you merely missed. |
| Date | 00:28:34, February 18, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "It is possible, but as this Country hold democratic elections on a regular basis, and due to the nature of our democracy forcing parties to operate in government with others, it makes operating a tyrannical government nigh on impossible." Elections do not a democracy make. What difference does it make when it's one guy telling people how to run their lives with 51% of the population telling the 49% to run their lives? It's still dictatorship. Just a dictatorship of the majority. The Liberal Party sees little difference between them. "Not unless said Jew is carrying a weapon capable of killing any number of people around with them, no." But using this "public risk" reason to take away peoples rights is a dangerous precedent! Surely you can see that. You probably know full well of the danger, but wish to make it because you wish to control peoples lives. "But which is easier to stop. A person in a car which has multiple ways of disabling it but once stopped is of no risk to anyone, or a person in a building with a weapon that can hit a person over a distance that they have no chance of seeing let alone avoiding." I'd have to say the person with a gun would be easier to stop. He is less mobile and more easier to overwhelm. "Which we do, as does the majority of evidence." Such as? Pitty it hasn't worked at all in the UK then. "Raising public awareness isn't the difficult part. Getting people to actually follow the rules laid down by the programmes is as we have no way of making people attend." Yes we do. Deterrance is a great way. "Really? So in a Country without guns people will be using firearms more than a Country with... that doesn't even make sense. That's like saying "a Country without electricity use more light bulbs than one with"." But there is no way to make sure that there are no guns in the country. If we ban cannabis does that mean there will automatically be no cannabis left in the country? "You doubt that people who are unable to pass their driving tests and so are then unable to drive doesn't reduce the number of bad drivers on the road? There may well be more than you would like, but the fact remains that there would be more if there was no test." I am suggesting that even if people pass the test when they are out on their own they will stop following the rules. Passing a test does not a good driver make. "Not yet, but then isn't that a right people should have? We would also point out that we did not say people will kill indiscriminantly, but that is allows people the ability to, a distinct difference I'm sure you merely missed." My point is that they already have that ability. People can still acquire guns regardless of the law. |
| Date | 00:52:26, February 18, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "Elections do not a democracy make. What difference does it make when it's one guy telling people how to run their lives with 51% of the population telling the 49% to run their lives? It's still dictatorship. Just a dictatorship of the majority. The Liberal Party sees little difference between them." - We have not argued dictatorship, merely tyranny. "But using this "public risk" reason to take away peoples rights is a dangerous precedent! Surely you can see that. You probably know full well of the danger, but wish to make it because you wish to control peoples lives." - Controlling peoples lives isn't the point, ensuring they have a life and a greater chance of not being killed or injured is. "I'd have to say the person with a gun would be easier to stop. He is less mobile and more easier to overwhelm." - With stronger and thicker protection covering them. A vehicle is far easier to disable than getting a precise hit on a hidden individual. "Pitty it hasn't worked at all in the UK then." - Where is this UK? "Yes we do. Deterrance is a great way." - Deterence is almost impossible to guarantee. We deter people from smoking, but we can guarantee with the introduction of our recent law we are going to see a lot of new smokers. "But there is no way to make sure that there are no guns in the country. If we ban cannabis does that mean there will automatically be no cannabis left in the country?" - No, we accept it is impossible to guarantee that there are no guns in this Country, but by making them illegal and operating a robust and active border control we can limit their availability to such an extent to make the people safer then by allowing their easy availability and purchase. "I am suggesting that even if people pass the test when they are out on their own they will stop following the rules. Passing a test does not a good driver make." - Agreed, but not passing a test does stop another bad driver. Also, by passing a test they prove that they are capable and so it makes the culpable before the law as they know how they should be doing it rather than the argument from an untrained driver who could argue that they didn't know how to operate said vehicle. "My point is that they already have that ability. People can still acquire guns regardless of the law." - But it is extremely difficult and so reduces the chances of a criminal being able to utilise such equipment and so improves the chances of peoples survival and the chance of the police of aprehending said criminal with limited collateral damage. |
| Date | 01:12:15, February 18, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | Okay we could argue this forever so I'll make my last and final point. Even if you can tightly control the border and stop the black market, people can still acquire firearms quite easily. You can easily manufacture a firearm in your basement using off the shelf products. The only way you can possibly stop this is by having a 1984-esque state where the gov't watches your every move. Either way, we are not going to stop firearms use, not by a longshot. |
| Date | 01:16:12, February 18, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | We agree that we cannot guarantee the complete stoppage of firearms usage, though we do take issue with the "not by a longshot" statement. What we can, and should, do is make all available efforts to limit their availability and so protect the public from harm. A home made firearm is more likely to harm the individual using it than a person threatened. |
| Date | 01:19:57, February 18, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | "A home made firearm is more likely to harm the individual using it than a person threatened." We agree wholeheartedly. And thus is why we would wish to see a return to professional made ones. |
| Date | 01:45:23, February 18, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | But the only people who would have them would be criminals as everyone else wouldn't be breaking the law, thus why we don't want professional firearms freely available as home made ones are more risk to the criminal than the average citizen. |
| Date | 01:51:56, February 18, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | But they are only criminals because the law made them so. They may not otherwise be bad people. |
| Date | 12:20:36, February 18, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Act |
| Message | If having a gun is against the law then law abiding people, good if you will, will not have guns. If they are not law abiding, then they are criminals, thusly bad, then they will make their own weapons and so deserve anything they get. The law doesn't make anyone anything, it is their choices that people make with the knowledge that the law pertains to something that makes them something. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 100 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 111 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 189 |
| Random fact: In Particracy players are only allowed to play as one party at a time. Want to swap nations? Inactivate your current party and make a new one! Want to return? Request Moderation to reactivate your party on the forum! |
| Random quote: "Civil disobedience. . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem." - Howard Zinn |