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: Police arms
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Thomasian 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: November 2159
Description[?]:
| Noting that legally the public only has access to standard (non-military) fire armsWe suggest that the police are mainly limited to standard fire arms (pistols and low caliber sub-machineguns) with military grade fire arms (high-caliber weaponry) being given to specially trained groups. All police officers will continue be issued with protective body armour.The reasons for this change in our opinion are as follows: Some police officers may abuse their access to military grade weapons. By reducing the access of all groups to military grade fire arms we reduce the risk of them going into circulation. Military weapons cost a lot, by reducing the number of military grade weapons bought by the police we free up funds for other areas. By focusing on small groups with military grade weapons we will be able to provide a more experienced special police force who will be less likely to make deadly mistakes. Of course if there is a situation where military grade fire-arms are needed these specially trained groups can be used, or even the military itself. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Current: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:49:41, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | The LSU is still trying the best they can to weaken our police and to put our citizens in increased danger. |
| Date | 20:06:23, December 20, 2005 CET | From | National Thomasian Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | We are looking out for the safety of our citizens. When every single policeman is required to carry machine guns and rifles we are putting our citizens at risk. We don't really see that there is a need for the police to be forced to carry machine guns and rifles with them. |
| Date | 20:19:42, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Socialist Front of Mordusia | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | The seperation between the police force and the military is a very important one. It is the duty of the police force to keep order, protect the innocent and apprehend criminals. This does not require rocket propelled missile launchers, nor does it require flame-throwers, handgrenades and machineguns. Having these weapons stored in every local police department also posses a security risk to the nation. It is considerably easier for terrorist groups to steal weapons from local law enforcement agencies, than from our professional military. We are in favour. |
| Date | 22:15:55, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | No one is arguing in favor of "rocket propelled missile launchers, ... flame-throwers, handgrenades and machineguns", but it is clear that liberals would prefer that our police be utterly defenseless. |
| Date | 22:49:01, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Socialist Front of Mordusia | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | Rocket propelled missile launchers, flame-throwers, handgrenades and machineguns are all military grade weaponry. This proposal allows the police to carry standard issue firearms, and special units to use military grade weaponry. Surely this does not render our police "utterly defenseless"? |
| Date | 23:36:46, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | The weaponry you mentioned is obviously both impractical and counter-productive for police on the street, as you surely must know. So since you chose to engage in hyberbole, we did likewise. It would be better if these proposals were more specific, but we have to work with the given wording. Our police put their lives at risk to protect us. We trust them to do their jobs both honestly and professionally at all times, despite what the LSU might think. We would rather that our police have both better offensive equipment (weapons) and better defensive equipment (body armor) that any criminals they might meet. |
| Date | 00:46:02, December 21, 2005 CET | From | National Thomasian Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | The CLP is absolutley right, to have the police carry military grade equipment is impractical and counter-productive for police on the street, which is why we stop making them carry it and instead give them standard fire-arms. |
| Date | 15:16:49, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Socialist Front of Mordusia | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | A big problem with military grade weaponry is that it is designed solely for killing. The duty of our police to is stop and apprehend criminals, and only use lethal force in situations where the lives of themselves or civilians are in danger. Our police may not work as the judge and jury, which they sometimes do, unintentionally. A standard issue firearm can easily pacify a criminal. Would it make any difference if the wording of the proposal added that "standard issue firearms" includes both pistols and low caliber sub-machineguns, adding also that the police may also wear body armor, and that each police force is given a limited number of high-caliber weaponry, for the extreme circumstances? This is, of course, only if both the LSU and CPL would agree to these changes. We believe the government could accomplish more, if we are all willing to compromise and to engage in dialogue with other parties. |
| Date | 15:37:32, December 21, 2005 CET | From | National Thomasian Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | I'd be more than happy to make those changes because that is what I intended in the first place. |
| Date | 18:06:11, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | Guess what SFM -- all weaponry is designed for killing. That's why the criminals carry guns, and that's why the police should have better guns. If the standard calls it "military-grade", then so be it. But our police should have better guns and better body armor than the criminals. This proposal does the exact opposite -- it weakens our police on the street, and makes both them and the citizens they are sworn to protect more vulnerable. Whenever a police officer fires his gun, he is obliged to (1) file a report and (2) account for every bullet. If a citizen is killed the police officer is put on administrative leave and the incident is investigated to make sure that the killing was justified. We have proposed having doctors follow such guidelines, but for some reason the parties on the left in Mordusia operate under a double-standard when it comes to police vs. doctors. Weakening the police on the street does not make crime less likely. Since the LSU has seen fit to intentionally misstate our position, let us state clearly and unequivocally that we will NEVER support the LSU's ongoing efforts to weaken our police, INCLUDING THIS PROPOSAL. |
| Date | 03:35:32, December 22, 2005 CET | From | Socialist Front of Mordusia | To | Debating the Police arms |
| Message | We in the SFM hope that the tone set by the CPL in the future will be less hostile. To accuse opposing parties of wishing to weaken national security is both uncalled for, and degrading to the political debate of our country. It sets a bad example, and we hope that the CPL, as the biggest party in our country, will do their best to try a more diplomatic approach to these kinds of situations. The killing of criminals is not a priority of the police force. The police exists to protect and serve the public, and as such to apprehend criminals. Our legal systems is responsible for handing out the punishments. These two should not interefere with eachother. When a police officer carries a high-caliber weapon, and fires upon a criminal, there is a high chance of a lethal outcome. This is not the fault of the police officer. He is given a high caliber weapon, and he uses it, as would anyone. However, this will lead to deaths in situations where a low caliber weapon could have served to pacify the criminal without resulting death. While both low and high caliber firearms do considerable damage to the organs of the victim, high caliber firearms do much more damage, which it is harder to clear out. To this date, there is no effective armor for the head, so if our policemen believe that lethal force is the only option, they are trained enough to aim for the head. We also wish to contest the claim that all weaponry is designed for killing. Notable exceptions include rubber bullets, mace, water-cannons and a variety of non-lethal gasses, not to forget nightsticks, tacers, stunguns and other weapons relying on elecrical charges. Surely we must all agree that it is better to have a wounded suspect, who's guilt can be tried in a court of law, then a dead suspect, who regardless of guilt or not can never be brought back to life. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 32 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 187 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: Alduria, Rildanor and Lourenne all have Canrilaise (French) cultures. |
| Random quote: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Dalberg-Acton |