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: Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Dynamist 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: September 2047
Description[?]:
| Too many of our citizens have died because of our lax laws on firearms. Whether it be criminal gangs armed with guns, individuals who decide they have nothing to lose, or even just accidents, liberal gun laws mean innocent deaths and maimings. With fewer guns in society, criminals will find it harder to get their hand son them, and will find it harder to effectively threaten people. While the SDP is aware that we can never guarantee a gun free society, at least let us try for a freer society. |
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: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Proposed: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:44:32, May 02, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | Police would still carry such weapons. Fewer criminals would carry weapons. Fewer people would be killed in incidents such as this: http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=1478 . The PP's representative attended the funerals - and yet does nothing to prevent this sort of tragedy happening again. And in any case, why would allowing civilians to buy firearms actually protect them? Unless they always carry a gun with them, they are still at risk. Criminals will always be beter prepared. With the present liberal policy, criminals will always have guns, and civilians will only do so if they can afford it - and by some fortuitous stroke of luck happen to have one to hand at the time. With the proposed laws, potential criminals can be detected and arrested more quickly if they are found to have guns, civilians, and far more will not be armed at all; our citizens can easily fend these off with their spears. Finally, do we want Tukarali to be the sort of place where everyone carries a gun with them. |
| Date | 23:55:28, May 02, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | I am in favour of this bill. We don't want to make it easier for criminals to obtain firearms. |
| Date | 03:29:47, May 03, 2005 CET |
From | Inactive | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | So if a criminal attacks (they will get guns anyway), citizens will be helpless to protect themselves.
[sarcasim]Real smart[/sarcasim] |
| Date | 14:58:43, May 03, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | Could the MP please reread the SDP's argument, with particular note to this phrase: "And in any case, why would allowing civilians to buy firearms actually protect them?" |
| Date | 22:32:41, May 03, 2005 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | That way when a person breaks into their home armed, they have a gun to defend their home. That is how it actually protects them. Its a known fact that when a criminal knows you have a gun in the house, they'll leave you alone. If you take away a person's right to own firearms, you put them at risk. I urge you to vote against this bill. |
| Date | 22:34:11, May 03, 2005 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | BTW SDP, I like how you attacked me for my political views. However, there is evidence of those states that have concealed gun laws that they saw a DECREASE in crime. |
| Date | 23:31:59, May 03, 2005 CET |
From | Inactive | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | Criminals will get guns anyway. They have connections. When they attack, they dont know who else has a gun, and will blow there brains out if they shoot. |
| Date | 23:55:34, May 03, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | To the PP's first point: Current legislation means that everyone then needs a gun in their home to pretect them, because they know every burglar will be similarly armed. Why could our citizens not defend against intruders equally well with their spear?
To the PP's second post: how significant is this decrease in crime? What, precisely do these laws entail? Do you know that this decrease was not the result of another factor?
Do remember that extensive proliferation of firearms also results in far more devastating sporadic incidents, such as the article previously mentioned, as well as increasing the risk posed by all criminal activity. Current gun laws mean that one in 10,000 die each year due to firearms. This law could reduce that thirtyfold and will save hundreds of Tukaralians.
<|Data: 1999 US vs UK mortality rates|> |
| Date | 00:26:53, May 04, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | Not all criminals have these 'connections', and not all those who have access will take the risk of detection associated. Certainly, opportunistic burglars are unlikely to carry a gun if they know they eill be arrested if found with one. The MP's second sentence is unclear. If the MP is suggesting that burglars will kill others on sight, then I would suggest that this is certainly not in their interest, since they risk a much greater sentence. On the other hand, a criminal is more likely to shoot if they believe their life is threatened - i.e. if confronted by a gun. And in such a scenariom, the criminal is more likely to know better how to use and aim a gun than the victim, and will therefore win. Liberal gun laws make crime more dangerous. |
| Date | 02:36:48, May 04, 2005 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | I have to check the stats but I do know that gun crime is down in those states. Also you can't compare gun rates of 2 nations with vastly different population numbers. |
| Date | 15:18:03, May 04, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | I might move to a vote, since all parties have had time to respond and the debate seems to be sticking on the same point - i.e. whether civilians are actually protected by guns - while the reasons for the passing bill have not really been questioned. Any (reasoned) objections? |
| Date | 00:40:58, May 06, 2005 CET |
From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Protection from Firearms Bill, 2045 | | Message | Sorry guys. I think this one needs a bit more debate and decision, maybe a nother option, coupled with police weaponry before i will agree to this. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 13 |
| no | Total Seats: 152 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas." - Karl Marx |