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: Getting Rid of Guns Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Humanist Socialist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: September 2085
Description[?]:
| Whereas, we must at all costs avoid deadly mistakes by the police; Whereas, arming the police can lead to what is essentially application of the death penalty without trial; Whereas, non-lethal weapons are perfectly capable of incapacitating people who are risks to public safety; Whereas, if the police aren't armed it would be just a little bit dangerous if the citizenry could be; Therefore, we propose this Act for the control of guns. Annexe to the Act: We propose that clubs (for example hunting clubs) should be able to get a licence for the procurement of firearms, but that a condition of this licence would be that the guns would have to be kept under secure lock and key in the clubhouse (or wherever) and only distributed to members in pursuit of the sporting practice. Private individual ownership as such would still be forbidden. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Current: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Proposed: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Current: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:41:06, July 24, 2005 CET | From |   RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | I'm not sure about the first one, we should allow our people to have guns if they like shooting as a hobby (or a sport), but with strict regulations of course. |
| Date | 16:31:39, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Humanist Socialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | We have updated the description of the Act to include an Annexe that will hopefully allow for such situations. We are certainly not moving Article 2 without also moving Article 1. |
| Date | 16:34:09, July 24, 2005 CET | From | New Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | With the Annexe, we would support this bill. |
| Date | 17:02:37, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | As would we. |
| Date | 17:13:44, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | This is ill-thought out legislation, as it bans police from carrying guns in ALL SITUATIONS including, for example, terrorist situations and armed robberies. I would prefer the following: Article 1 Current: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely. Proposed: Adult individuals may own firearms only when granted a licence by the Government. Article 2 Current: Police officers carry standard firearms. Proposed: Police officers may only carry firearms in responce to a specific incident which the police could reasonably believe requires their use. This is much more flexible, and allows people who pass the requisite checks to gain guns. What it does do, however, is stops people from just buying them from any high street shop which is clearly not a good idea, and stops the police carrying them as a matter of course which is bad for all the reasons which are stated in this act. |
| Date | 17:33:06, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | Once again, I agree with the Liberal Imperialist representative - police do need to be armed in certain situations, such as terrorist situations and armed responses - the legislation at the moment would leave the police defenceless against potentially armed criminals |
| Date | 17:36:19, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Humanist Socialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | It wouldn't leave the police defenceless -- tasers and the like could be used. LIP: maybe those proposals would be preferable, but they aren't in the game's list of choices. |
| Date | 17:37:22, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | Indeed. Especially as most non-lethal weapons have an extremely short range and often are repelled by thick clothing. They should be used alongside normal firearms not instead of. |
| Date | 17:39:21, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | That last message was to GRP. If it's a choice between all police carrying guns and none, then I'd pick all of them. It's better that we endure the disadvantages of armed police than to have civilians and policement killed because police are going up against machineguns armed with spud guns and waterpistols. |
| Date | 18:23:39, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | I believe that this piece of legislation would only apply to your average constable and to normal situations, special units would still be able to use other weapons and equipment. |
| Date | 18:52:44, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | It doesnt say that - it says that police cannot carry guns. There is no qualification. This is dangerous legislation that will result in a breakdown of law and order. |
| Date | 19:04:41, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | I don't think it would result in that... But would you rather have the police killing innocent people like so recently happened in London? |
| Date | 19:10:28, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | And what if that man had been a suicide bomber? He would have been pushed to the ground by the police and if they couldnt have shot him then he would have blown himself up killing dozens of people. In the end, that was not a problem with police having guns (they thought he was a suicide bobmer so there wasnt much else they could actually do if you examine the situation) - it was a problem with police intelligence. On the other hand, what if someone with mental illness gets hold of a gun? He could kill dozens of people and the police wouldnt be able to get close enough to him to use tasers (which can be stopped by a thick sweatshirt in any case). The more important problem is that of organised crime - even if guns are banned criminals can still get hold of guns on the black market (to say otherwise is naive) and (with this law in place) use them with impunity to rob banks, or to commit murders. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the odd accident cannot be used to justify legislation that will result in the unnecessary deaths of tens or even hundreds of times more innocent people to terrorists, or criminals. |
| Date | 21:11:36, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | You can't base a policy on "what if". |
| Date | 21:27:25, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | Now, to adress your argument of "And what if that man had been a suicide bomber?" There was absolutely no reason for the police to believe he was. He was shot because he left a house that was under surveillance and for refusing to obey instructions of plain-clothed police officers. If those officers would've been in uniform, I could've understood why they chased him, but I wouldn't take orders from average persons either. Now, their is the question of: why was that one person followed. He was followed because of, I'll try to say this as polite as possible, his 'foreign appearance'. He was a suspect because he looked non-British. Now, why did he run then? The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police. Basically, he was shot because of police racism combined with fear, and because he had already had bad experiences with the police. Or, to say it differently, an innocent man died because of police incompetence. |
| Date | 21:28:37, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | That is: he had probably already had bad experiences with the police in his home country, we all know what the Brazilian police sometimes does in slums and how they treat their inhabitants. |
| Date | 21:30:18, July 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | "On the other hand, what if someone with mental illness gets hold of a gun? He could kill dozens of people and the police wouldnt be able to get close enough to him to use tasers (which can be stopped by a thick sweatshirt in any case). The more important problem is that of organised crime - even if guns are banned criminals can still get hold of guns on the black market (to say otherwise is naive) and (with this law in place) use them with impunity to rob banks, or to commit murders. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the odd accident cannot be used to justify legislation that will result in the unnecessary deaths of tens or even hundreds of times more innocent people to terrorists, or criminals." There are enough non-lethal weapons that can take out criminals from a large distance. |
| Date | 14:18:23, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | Rutania Social Democrat Party - can you make ONE post rather than 4 little ones because it's harder to respond to all the points you raise. "You can't base a policy on "what if"." All policies are based on "what if" - for example murder laws - "What if people murder people?", theft laws - "What if people steal things?" and this law - "What if the police shoot people by accident?". Second - I dont want to spend a lot of time debating this issue, because it's off topic, but how is it racist for police to shoot a man who CAME OUT OF A HOUSE THEY SUSPECT IS BEING SUED BY TERRORISTS and when they ask him to stop HE RUNS AWAY and then just a day afer 3 attempted tube bombings HE RUNS INTO A TUBE TRAIN. What would YOU think? What would YOU do? It emegres today that he wasnt just scared by police - he ran because he had an invalid visa and was therefore illegally staying in Britain. He ran BECAUSE HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME. The police, acting on what they knew or thought they knew, could have done nothing else. In Rutania, with this bill passed (as it looks like it will be) by naive socialist parties will leave the police able to do NOTHING when faced with a terrorist threat. "There are enough non-lethal weapons that can take out criminals from a large distance." Such as? You make lots of statements like this but you never back them up. Name a weapon. |
| Date | 18:55:29, July 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | "Second - I dont want to spend a lot of time debating this issue, because it's off topic, but how is it racist for police to shoot a man who CAME OUT OF A HOUSE THEY SUSPECT IS BEING SUED BY TERRORISTS and when they ask him to stop HE RUNS AWAY and then just a day afer 3 attempted tube bombings HE RUNS INTO A TUBE TRAIN. What would YOU think? What would YOU do? It emegres today that he wasnt just scared by police - he ran because he had an invalid visa and was therefore illegally staying in Britain. He ran BECAUSE HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME. The police, acting on what they knew or thought they knew, could have done nothing else. In Rutania, with this bill passed (as it looks like it will be) by naive socialist parties will leave the police able to do NOTHING when faced with a terrorist threat." He ran because he was scared, not because he had an invalid visa. If you're scared, primitive parts of the brain take over, so you can't reason anymore. He probably wasn't able to think about his visa. In the Brazilian slums, if you see an armed person moving towards you, you run, that's an instinct, otherwise you're dead. And the police was in plain clothes, for all we know, he could've thought he was facing a terrorist gang trying to take everyone hostage in the station. "Such as? You make lots of statements like this but you never back them up. Name a weapon." - Electrical Batons : Standard dimension baton which delivers an electric charge of low voltage, powered by standard flash-light cells. Also known as stun baton or shok baton. - Biotechnical, Calmatives: Biotechnical agents which are sedatives or sleep-inducing drugs - Biotechnical, Hypodermic Syringe-Dart: Modified shotgun or handgun in which the projectile is a drug- filled syringe activated by a small charge on impact. Wide variety of drugs available including emetic (vomiting) agents. - Electrical, Flashlight: A type of flashlight designed with electrodes on the base. - Electrical, Police Jacket: Police jacket which jolts anyone who touches it. - Electrical, Projector: An advanced version of the standoff stun gun, where no wires are required. The charges are delivered through the air through pre-ionized air channels or by charging a low energy projectile which releases the charge at impact. Another approach is to launch a low energy projectile that releases the electrical charge at impact by compressing a piezo-electric element. - Electromagnetic, Engine Kill: The use of high-powered microwaves to kill the electrical system of an engine. - Entangler, Net-Electrified: A net shot from a gun at a targeted individual. Will release an electric shock if the target tries to struggle. - Entangler, Riot Gloves: Heavy protective gloves used by prison guards and riot police which protect the hands and forearms from cuts and blunt trauma. These gloves allow for the grappling of prisoners and rioters. - Projectile, Bag-Bean: Fabric sacks filled with lead shot (usually No. 9) weighing from 40 to 150 grams, designed to be fired from 12 gauge shotguns and 37mm (40mm) launchers. The bags conform to the shape of the target on impact, producing less damage than a solid hard projectile. The bags are rolled in the cartridge and unroll after exiting the launch barrel. These projectiles are designed for direct impact on the target, therefore accuracy is important to ensure effective impacts. The level of energy delivered ranges from 40 to 100-foot pounds, depending on the distance the projectile has to travel. Also known as Flying Bean Bag or Shot Bag. - Projectile, Baton-Rubber: Pliable rubber cylindrical projectiles delivered from the riot gun or British Army signal gun. Aimed at crowd's legs or at the ground for ricochet effect into a crowd. Also known as rubber baton or rubber bullet 6- inch. And that is just a small selection of the non-lethal weapons already in existence. ;-) |
| Date | 18:56:18, July 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | There are non-lethal weapons for all situations. |
| Date | 20:57:53, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | "He ran because he was scared, not because he had an invalid visa. If you're scared, primitive parts of the brain take over, so you can't reason anymore. He probably wasn't able to think about his visa. In the Brazilian slums, if you see an armed person moving towards you, you run, that's an instinct, otherwise you're dead. And the police was in plain clothes, for all we know, he could've thought he was facing a terrorist gang trying to take everyone hostage in the station." Yeah he ran because he was scared - scared he would be deported because he was illegally staying in Britain. Since the police hadnt pulled a gun on him until he ran away, nor did they even have trunchons or were even DRESSED like police (being plain-clothed). And he was confronted on a street, in plain view of other people, not in the station. He ran into the station during which time the police didnt shoot him even though they could have done. They onyl shot him so that he didnt blow up the train, which for all they know he could have done since they were told that the house he came out of was being used by terrorists. Now, onto yuor rather rubbish list of non-lethal alternatives. Batons - yes I'd like you see you try and approach an armed terrorist with a baton. What do you think he'd do? Shoot you maybe? The same goes for all the electric flashlights etc and riot equipment. Syringe guns - if they hit a major artery they will still kill, and are therefore hardly non lethal. In addition, I wouldnt like to see police trying to storm a building with a massive tranquiliser rifle. They arent submachineguns you know. They also take some time to have an effect - time in which the person you're shooting can shoot back killing you, or detonate a bomb. An "electromagnetic engine kill" isnt even an anti-personel weapon. An electrified net again can only be used in open spaces, and is short ranged. Beanbag rounds and rubber bullets will not incapacitate someone. They're only designed for crowd control and wont stop someone pulling a detonation cord on some bombs strapped to them or from firing back. All of the weapons you have proposed are completely useless when stroming a building, and of very limited use even if a terrorist is standing right in the middle of an open space with no one around him (which is extremely unlikely). Simply listing dozens of different things doesnt solve the fact that none of them are any good. |
| Date | 21:03:52, July 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | "Simply listing dozens of different things doesnt solve the fact that none of them are any good." None of them are good? I got them from a list of the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies, I think they should work fine. There are non-lethal weapons for all situations, from battlefields to ordinary policing. The situation you described of storming a building can be easily solved with Biotechnical Behavior-Altering Drugs or Biotechnical Calmatives, if delivered in a gaseous form, they were already used for terrorist and hostage situations in 1987. |
| Date | 21:09:48, July 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | And if necessary we can resort to more primitive non-lethal weapons like the ones they use to hunt animals in order to tag them in several wildlife parks in Africa. |
| Date | 23:05:02, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Getting Rid of Guns Act |
| Message | "None of them are good? I got them from a list of the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies, I think they should work fine. There are non-lethal weapons for all situations, from battlefields to ordinary policing." For goodness sake READ my post where I explained for EACH ONE why they are unsuitable. And yes, they work fine FOR WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR. None of them are designed to replace guns in SWAT teams. They're designed for riot control against crowds unarmed civilians, or for taking on individuals armed with baseball bats and the like,m not people with guns. "The situation you described of storming a building can be easily solved with Biotechnical Behavior-Altering Drugs or Biotechnical Calmatives, if delivered in a gaseous form, they were already used for terrorist and hostage situations in 1987." Or perhaps the Moscow Theatre Seige where such gasses killed hundreds of hostages, unlike the Iranian Embassy Seige where the SAS cleared the building without a single hostage dying during the storming of the embassy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 368 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 49 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 140 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." - Friedrich Hayek |