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: Security of Police Forces
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
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: November 2042
Description[?]:
| Our current gun laws allow citizens to carry lethal weapons, however our police force cannot. This bill will allow Police forces to carry lethal weaponry to ensure their security and effectiveness. |
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 may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | As noted when the choice to carry non-lethal weapons was made, guns are still available, they simply aren't carried as standard armament. This prevents accidental shootings and ensures that when lethal force is used it is, in fact, warranted.
There are more than effective non-lethal means available, such as air tasers, that can incapacitate a suspect without requiring the officer to get within arm's reach. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | United Socialist Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | The non-lethal weapons available today is as efficiant as any normal weapon that the police would have access to, with one importan factor removed, they do not kill.
The police is still, of course, obligied to protect civilians and the society with all means necessary and we would assume that such equipment that is used to bring down villains before they could hurt the society/population would be available at say, the trunks of their cars and in each police-station. |
| Date | not recorded |
From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | The FRP would be perfectly happy with the current police enforcement laws if it were not for the fact that there are legal ways for citizens to acquire lethal weapons for themselves. A well trained police force is less likely to kill someone accidentally than a someone with a gun in their own home. American statistical information can easily show you that. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | Also, making gun ownership in this country legal allows a weapons industry to exist the previously would not. That makes it far more easy for criminals to acquire weapons through illegal channels. No matter how much regulation there is, there will still be this factor to consider. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | I believe that is the point of the FRP, since guns are legal by not allowing our police force access to them puts them at a disadvantage. The bad guys will have guns the good guys won't. Since it is often an unknown factor when first encountering a criminal if they are armed or not, the police will not be armed with deadly force. Thus they will be out gunned resulting in the possible loss of life before sufficient force can be applied. Please note this does not necessarily mean the PP is in favor of this bill just trying to understand the debate. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | Though it is kind of odd to allow the general population to walk around armed while the police cannot. We will investigate the effectiveness of non lethal alternatives before formulating our position. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | The point being, if you think legal firearms are the problem then address the problem directly, rather than legislating on tangents. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | There are also other reasons for providing the police force with lethal weapons. It acts as a deterrence towards criminals in the processing of being arrested. The threat of lethal force will act as a method of controlling a situation. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | Or it will spur criminals to shoot first, knowing the only way to evade the police is to kill them. Either is equally likely. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | We already have restricted the right to bear arms. Others are free to attempt to restrict it further, but they will do so without our support. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Security of Police Forces | | Message | From the sound of it, the LP does not mind that the Police Forces cannot adequately act as a deterrent against crime nor defend themselves. Since they do not support this bill and they appear to still want citizens to have lethal weapons. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 11 |
| no | Total Seats: 89 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." - John Maynard Keynes |