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: Return to Normalcy V1.4
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: January 2067
Description[?]:
| Police officers must be agile, credible and effective in the eyes of criminals. Police protect citizens and must have the means to protect themselves at all times. This bill comes with the proposal that: * All police officers can carry lethal weapons as well as non-lethal weapons. *Police officers are giving special training to determine when it is necessary to use lethal and non-lethal force. *Police officers are encouraged to use non-lethal weapons at all possible times. |
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 | 00:08:35, June 07, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | It may indeed be normal for the police to go around killing people, but that doesn't mean it's desirable. |
| Date | 11:05:59, June 07, 2005 CET | From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | libcom, surely there is a better argument than that, we could say the same for criminals too you know! The point is: a criminal with a gun versus a policeman with a gun who is more likely to win? as we pointed out, police would be sensitivity trained and on how to determine when to use weapons and when not to. In RL, maybe many of you have read about england and how the police do not carry weapons, however recently there have been a number of problems because of that. We appreciate the attitude behind police not carrying weaponry, and we hope that the training will maintain that mentality. as you must know, most police officers go through their whole lives without firing their gun, that is important to remember. guns also have the distinct advantage of maintaining space between the criminal and the policeman. in a situation when the police officer did not have a gun this would be difficult. furthermore, the alternatives to guns, such as tasers etc. are not always effective. OOC: the article i wrote in the malivian national news forum was based off a real event in which it took 14 taser hits on one criminal before he even was on the ground. it only takes one bullet to kill or disable a police officer. |
| Date | 21:34:04, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | the question is are, and if so how many, more non-police killed by police with guns, then police killed when they do not have guns? |
| Date | 21:48:31, June 07, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | It's a bit more complicated than that. Police carrying guns may well lead to more police being shot pre-emptively by criminals, and a more general escalation of violence throughout society. |
| Date | 11:01:45, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | we believe that is a fair point libcom. but importantly also, what about criminals who escape becuase they killed the policemen who were unable to subdue the criminal? we cannot risk the lives of our police force. |
| Date | 11:58:57, June 08, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | If the police are carrying guns, criminals are more likely to shoot first so that they can run without being shot in the back. When the police aren't carrying guns, criminals are less likely to risk the life sentence they'd receive for killing a cop. In any case, we have a very low rate of violent crime, due to our comprehensive public education system and the material security provided by our collective farms. |
| Date | 16:50:16, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | and pigs fly. :D but seriously, the first part of your argument is relatively convincing. nevertheless, we do have the problem that it is legal for citizens to own guns (with a licence) what this means is that there is a weapons industry in our country. this always leads to guns getting into the wrong hands, and in a far more easy way than if we had no guns in the first place. would all the parties consider enacting harsher gun laws if we drop this? |
| Date | 18:42:46, June 08, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | We'd certainly welcome a move to outlaw handguns and automatic rifles, if they're not already banned. The current regulations are fine with regards to hunting rifles and shotguns though. |
| Date | 02:05:08, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | no to gun laws, we may support this but as of yet are unconvinced it is necessary. |
| Date | 11:41:58, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | the discrepancy is an issue on its own, police: no guns, citizens: guns. might as well make all the citizens part of the police force. that would solve the problem |
| Date | 00:52:51, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | We assume the last comment is made in sarcasm, since not even the FRP can be so ignorant as to believe that deputizing the neighborhood watch would solve anything. What the FRP has continued to ignore is that there is more than one way to approach law enforcement; violence, force and the threat of both is only necessary if our police operate through a deterrant threat approach. On the other hand, community policing, which is where the police have a cooperative rather than confrontational relationship with communities, does not operate on the threat of or use of force. In fact, the use of force damages the ability of police to operate within communities in this fashion, for obvious reasons: violence has victims. Just as rehabilitation is more effective than punitive prison sentences, community policing helps prevent crime, increases cooperation with investigations, and prevents unnecessary confrontation. Disarming our police may mean they are unable to go toe to toe with every violent criminal on the street without calling for back up, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. it's an exchange: the ability to immediately respond with lethal force for a positive relationship between police and civilians. Sounds good to us. |
| Date | 11:31:23, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | criminals by their nature are not part of the law abiding community, sure its good for PR to have a friendly police, but we should already have that. its called sensetivity training. police can have a great approach to policing, but if they do not have the ability to back up words with action then they fail. its the league of nations all over again. |
| Date | 14:30:42, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | And where do criminals come from? Do they spontaenously generate from poisoned soil? Or are they created when individual citizens feel they can no longer function within the law in order to acheive their desired ends? Is it a coincidence that crime goes up when the economy takes a turn for the worse. Or, that deterrance has never been strongly correlated with a decrease in crime? And whatever this league of nations is, the FRP is obviously married to the use of force as part of law enforcement, which shouldn't be surprising, but is nonetheless disturbing and deplorable. |
| Date | 10:50:26, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | force doesn't have to be used, it just has to be believed that it can and will be used when necessary. its called credible threat. as for crime rising in poor economies, why aren't the parties helping to prevent this by reinstating copyrights and patents, reforming environmental law to be less restrictive yet also effective? There is also a definite correlation between those and the economy. |
| Date | 01:03:07, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | FRP: which is more likely to cause crime through poverty? a $1000 economy where 99% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people. $0.11 for the working person! or a $500 economy where 66% of the wealth is controlled by 33% of the people? $0.45 for the working person! |
| Date | 13:05:29, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | Hopefully Malivia has more than a few thousand Pl to our name, but the point is well made. And on the topic of the use of force, which person is more likely to shoot a police officer: the one who has had a healthy and cooperative relationship with the police as they grew up, or one whose relative was shot by the police? |
| Date | 05:57:04, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | We support the issues raised by the LevP but feel the free access to weapons by the population requires us to consider providing the police with the weapons to protect themselves. But as this will not pass in any case we will stand on our previous commitment and err on the side of caution for the population at large. |
| Date | 19:32:16, June 15, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.4 |
| Message | The poulation don't have 'free access' to weapons. There are strict licencing conditions. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 7 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 70 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations. |
| Random quote: “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.” --H.L. Mencken |