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: Guns
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free Conservative 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: June 2227
Description[?]:
| More reasonable gun laws. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Current: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Proposed: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:19:56, May 05, 2006 CET | From |  Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | There is no reason for this bill, we do not support it. |
| Date | 17:47:55, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | The figures for firearm deaths and injuries each year speak for themselves, and the legacy of countless atrocities in particular has left a mental scar on the collective society. Unless specifically required for professional jobs, then nobody has need for a firearm in modern society. We oppose any movement in this direction. |
| Date | 20:17:50, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | "The figures for firearm deaths and injuries each year speak for themselves, and the legacy of countless atrocities in particular has left a mental scar on the collective society. Unless specifically required for professional jobs, then nobody has need for a firearm in modern society. We oppose any movement in this direction." Did it occure to you that 99% of these were crimes? And still no death penalty... This bill does not make streets more dangerous. I think the opposite will happen. More GOOD people can carry guns and be able to woard off the BAD people who would shoot comeone. Just because someone owns a guns does not make them a criminal or a bad person. |
| Date | 21:08:09, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | 1. We feel that the first, obvious issue is about proportions, of course all gun owners aren't necessarily criminals (we ignore the "bad person" part for the time being because we think that the binary view that there are goodies and baddies in life is crudely simplistic) but the more people that own guns, the more potential criminals will own guns too that is a fact, law of averages, call it what you will but it is fundamental. 2. Secondly we feel that FCP view of "criminals" probably mirrors that of their "goodies vs. baddies" syndrome, assuming that they are all "born bad" and that everything they do is pre-meditated. MOST gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence and accidents. Again the figures prove this as fact. 3. Thirdly, guns are devices designed to kill. They are devices that can take the life of another person, from a distance, with a very slight movement of a finger. They are such clinical, impersonal, killing implements that there is very very very little middle ground. As a result of this there are 3 major points to consider: a) Guns therefore cause far more panic than any other weapons increasing i) mishandling issues ii) the likelihood of violence. b) This is self-perpetuating and leads to more severe levels of violence in itself. c) To the average citizen (a "GOOD" person, as the FCP put it) a gun is more of a danger than an aid to self-defense because a criminal is far more likely to be i) more experienced ii) more skilled in using a weapon and , as mentioned above, is more likely to respond with escalated violence when a gun is produced against them. 4. Fourtly, citizens rely on us to protect them, it is an accepted mutual "contract". As happens generally when agreements are broken problems arise. When citizens do it, it is pure vigilantism. Even without the other major reasons, we re-iterate the most glaringly obvious point: More guns = More gun related deaths & injuries |
| Date | 21:31:40, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | "... a criminal is far more likely to be i) more experienced ii) more skilled in using a weapon..." No, actually people that carry guns generally know how to use them. I have never heard of a trained criminal, either. Other arguments aside, who do gun laws discrimate against? The criminals? No. If they are criminals, they will not mind breaking one law to get a gun. What about the normal people? Yes. Normal, law abiding people will not illegaly buy a gun. So the gun laws actually discriminate against the people it is meant to protect. Also, the whole gun law mentality is wrong. OK, call it 2% (hypothetical number) of people are criminals that would use a gun for the wrong purposes. If we implement gun laws, that means the other 98% of people, the law abiding "good" ones, cannot buy a gun, either. You are discriminating against the majority for the actions of few. How is that fair???? If someone says "I will kill you" to the president, do we take away the right to speak??? If someone beats their pet dog, do we implement laws banning pets??? If someone steals a credit card, do we ban credit cards??? NOOOO! We crack down on the CRIMINALS, not NORMAL PEOPLE! Everyone should have the right to own a gun for any reason, be it defense, hunting, or just for fun. I myself own a gun for hunting and recreation. I have never killed anyone. It is not hard to not kill someone accidentally. |
| Date | 22:38:39, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | it's not about merely knowing HOW to use a gun, somebody that had never seen one before could probably work that out within minutes, but having EXPERIENCE and SKILL in using it. Most gun-wielding criminals DO have the advantage over the average citizen in both these areas, that should be obvious if they are criminals by occupation and the citizen carries a gun only as a last resort. As for "never heard of a trained criminal", are you serious?! so you've never heard of criminals that have been in the armed forces, police etc. etc. etc. Training doesn't even have to mean this, it can be from pure experience. For the second paragraphy of the FCP response: Outlawing firearms can't work overnight, but it IS the first necessary step. YES IT WILL STOP many "criminals" getting guns because the LARGE MAJORITY of them are opportunist or are only potential criminals anyway - people are not BORN as criminals, it's not another species of human as the FCP tries to make out. Of course some criminals will find a way around it, but we can't expect all guns to disappear overnight, gradually availability will drop as will accessibility once it becomes easier to control. YET AGAIN we refer the FCP to the huge and often increasing levels of gun related deaths and injuries - if the current laws are stronger than the ones the FCP propose and these figures show that they clearly aren't doing enough to "crack down on the criminals" at the moment then it isn't exactly looking good for even more permissive laws on the subject is it?! "It is not hard not to kill someone accidentally" - we refer you to the most commonly occuring types of incidents again: domestic violence (what percentage of these were already convicted criminals? - we'd suggest a very very low proportion) and ACCIDENTS. Therefore in direct response to that suggestion - well obviously it's not hard enough! The "just for fun" response isn't even an argument, and neither is the "but I've never killed anyone" bit (OOC: you're ONE out of however many billion people) OOC: Moral of the story is - until you've got over your Disney-style "Goodies and Baddies" worldview, then any arguments of the FCP involving the word "criminal" are fundamentally doomed. |
| Date | 03:10:36, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | About domestic violence, it happens over time. If the abusees have not reported it, that is their own fault. And i did some research. "It should be noted that comparing the U.S. with other countries cannot always generate a productive argument for or against gun control. There are a great many unmeasured cultural factors which affect violence rates. Great Britain and Japan have low rates of both gun ownership and gun violence. However, Switzerland (which requires many citizens to own guns for military reasons) has high gun ownership rates but low violence; conversely Mexico has low gun ownership rates and high violence. Great Britain is often compared with the U.S., and it’s noted that the former not only has a much lower total homicide rate, but also a lower gun homicide rate. This fact is supposed to nail down the claim that it is gun ownership that causes the homicide rate differences. However, the same logic does not hold up when applied to nongun homicides. Britain’s rates of knife homicide and of killings with hands and feet are also far lower than the corresponding rates in the U.S., but no one is foolish enough to infer from these facts that the lower violence rates were caused by a lower rate of knife ownership in Britain, or to the British having fewer hands and feet than Americans! Incidentally, Great Britain’s crime per capita did not appear to change significantly after its strict gun laws were enacted in the 1920’s, anyway. Its crime per capita simply maintained its current rate of nearly one tenth the amount of that of the United States." England is simply less violent all together. "Many people believe guns should be outlawed because they are sometimes involved in fatal accidents. It is true that regulations which decrease the availability of guns among law-abiding citizens would in turn reduce gun accidents for everyone. However, gun accidents occur most often among people who choose to keep guns but not treat them with enough safety." "The most popular gun control proposals and laws are often based on oversimplified conceptions of the role of guns in most violent acts. The U.S. has higher violence rates than other western countries, and in a knee-jerk reaction, guns are often cited as the culprit. Research shows that gun laws which aim to equally disarm everyone do not produce much of a violence-reducing impact. In highly-violent areas where police simply cannot effectively control crime, the presence of guns among the general population appears to make criminal behavior more risky, especially deterring those who would assault family members, rob retails stores, or commit residential burglaries. In areas of the country where guns are more prevalent in the overall population, guns do end up being used in robberies and assaults more often, but the actual number of robberies and assaults (and also homicides, rapes, or suicides) is no greater than other parts of the country. In other words, guns don’t appear to increase the rate of violence." More? "About half of all accidents are self-inflicted (and not clearly classified as suicides). You’re 15 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a gun accident (assuming you own at least one car and gun)." "This essay is almost entirely based on the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, by Gary Kleck (1991)." Info from <http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/gun_control.html#research_example> |
| Date | 14:41:01, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | ooc: Could everyone please try and remember that IN THIS GAME THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OTHER REAL WORLD COUNTRY DOES NOT EXIST. I've tried to tell you before, FCP. The world here is called Terra. The real world is called Earth. The countries here do not exist there, and vice versa. You can only use general arguments related to the real world, and not cite America or Britain as an example. I could cite Britain as a previous provider or fantastic public housing, in another bill, but I do not. Public housing is now privatised, and it is a complete disaster. For the first time, dens of drugs and crime really do exist. Instead, though, I refer to Jelbania, which is the country we run in this GAME. |
| Date | 16:23:30, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | " ooc: Could everyone please try and remember that IN THIS GAME THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OTHER REAL WORLD COUNTRY DOES NOT EXIST." Sadly, nothing happens in Terra. Nothing at all. For real proof as to the effectiveness of bills, we must go back to the real world. This is an EXAMPLE. Unless people in terra are weird aliens from mars, they will act the same in BOTH worlds, real and not real. As NOTHING HAPPENS in this world, we must find examples elseware (Earth). Nearly NOTHING works like it should in theory. |
| Date | 18:27:41, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | OOC: Thanks DLP for making that point again. I also completely agree with your point on British public housing and was itching to use it myself in the IC debate. FCP - The problem is NOT in making general links to the real world. The problem comes when you assume that the real world basically comes down to the U.S! Just because something doesn't work in the U.S doesn't mean that it will not work period! There are a fair few other countries in the world! I have been fortunate enough to live in 3 or 4 countries and recognise that laws that work in some don't necessarily work in others and vice versa. To all of us in general: I also feel that this constant linking to the real world U.S syndrome is affecting some of our policy making in general. E.g "devolution" of power to different states is a completely different subject to the devolution of power in Bolivia! Infact based on geographical proportions Jelbania (with 5 regions) is almost certainly more similar to the latter. Constantly linking Jelbania like that to the U.S is almost as helpful as linking it to Europe as a continent. Given that the U.S is an unusually big country in the RL then it is inaccurate to link it to Terra countries which are all, more or less, of the same size. Anyway, it is for this reason that we have delayed response towards FCP's quotes essay. Ultimately we can all find and regurgitate RL case study essays to support varying perspectives, but that's not the point. |
| Date | 18:44:48, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | The only reason I often referance the US is because I LIVE THERE! Also, this bill is just like the laws where I live! Also, that was not aboout the US. That was world-wide. In every country spoken of in that essay, gun laws did nothing to provent crime. |
| Date | 18:57:56, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Interesting that the title of the book is Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, from what perspective would the FCP therefore assume the author is coming from? |
| Date | 23:47:19, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | "The book provides a pretty thorough and dispassionate analysis of the majority of research on guns (up to 1990) while developing a practical and meaningful critique of public gun control policy." Analysis on majority of research on guns. |
| Date | 00:25:07, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | OOC: where does that quote come from? the publisher? |
| Date | 03:53:25, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | The web site: http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/gun_control.html#research_example It is a guy doing a summary of the book writen by his friend. |
| Date | 21:27:54, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | CP and BBP, any thoughts? |
| Date | 18:09:20, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | We prefer the system of licences, it is the best way of ensuring guns are owned by reliable people who have a reason for owning them. ooc: Forgive me for stating the obvious, but a friend of the author is not going to write a summary saying: 'OMG what a terrible biased book DON'T buy it he is just a gun-loving nut!' is he? ;-) |
| Date | 19:42:24, May 08, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | (ooc: my point entirely DLP. I was leaving it for the FCP to figure this time) |
| Date | 20:06:00, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | DLP, I would prefer liscenses too, but not "under strict license conditions." "Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality." It may be less effective, but less restrictive to innocent people. Owning guns, however, does not increse crime; it simply puts a gun into thew picture. Also, why should people have a good reason for owning a gun? I have one just for fun. |
| Date | 20:21:28, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Why should people have a good reason for owning a gun - because they're devices designed to kill maybe? Also, does the FCP note its inconsistency this time? a) saying that gun regulations do nothing to prevent crime and saying that, and we quote, (the bill won't make the streets more dangerous)..."the opposite will happen" b) this new bill "may be less effective" Are the FCP actually sure in their own mind as to the "benefits" of their own proposal!? |
| Date | 23:30:39, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | If people carry guns, they can stop armed criminals in the act rather than have the police track them down. When I said "may be less effective," I ment that the criminals will be able to get the guns. However, that will not change the AMOUNT of violent crime. Criminals use knives, too, should we regulate them? People have been strangled with shoelaces, should we regulate them? |
| Date | 23:34:02, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | As to the benifits: Freedom. Less government. More people. "Why should people have a good reason for owning a gun - because they're devices designed to kill maybe?" We do not regulate knives. How about matches? Arsonists kill with them, why not regulate??? Because it infringes on the Majority for the actions of Few. You are making law on what the Minority of people do. |
| Date | 23:47:30, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | shoelaces and knives are fundamentally different in that they're not designed to kill, guns are. the comment more guns = more criminals have funs = SAME AMOUNT of crime! is completely illogical. again, knives aren't designed to kill, matches aren't designed to kill, guns ARE designed to kill. as for the "majority vs few" argument. tell that argument to the "few" thousands of victims of gun related incidents each year or the "few" thousands of citizens that lose loved ones to gun related incidents each year. |
| Date | 19:52:08, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | So, beef up the police force to impede those that commit crime. Maybe reinstate the death penalty. Making the entire population do something because of a few people is not fair at all. That is like punishing a group of people for the actions of one person in that group. That is what you are doing. Do not discriminate against everyone, discriminate against that person who did something wrong. |
| Date | 19:56:10, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Also, you said "the comment more guns = more criminals have funs = SAME AMOUNT of crime! is completely illogical." Let us explore this. "Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates." "* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2 * Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3 * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4 * Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."" courtesy of gunowners.org I am NOT using one simple example; all these gun lawed countries' crime rate did not go down after enacting their laws. |
| Date | 22:19:41, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | is this from the FCP's "chicks with guns" monthly again? Yes, yes it blatantly is. Gun zealots 'r' us. |
| Date | 03:02:48, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Courtesy of msn encarta dictionary: zealot-"zealous follower: a zealous supporter of a cause, especially a religious cause" Maybe. Although I would not call freedom a religion, I do support it zealously. BTW, are you done? All these direct personal attacks are getting anoying. I can understand DLP calling my bills idiotic, but this is out of hand. Or maybe you having trouble grasping an abstract concept and you do not know how to argue? |
| Date | 03:05:56, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | hmmmmm? |
| Date | 03:08:06, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | personal attacks? it's called politics! Just because the GMP doesn't want to take an apathetic acceptance to the FCP's role as Jelbania's major party, so be it. |
| Date | 22:26:44, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | So, instead of simply putting forth your opinions like everyone else, you attack me, repeatedly use the rhtoric that I am a bully, and move on? You know, I think you can grasp the abstract comcept, you just do not want to. Judging by your bills, you like being repressive. |
| Date | 23:21:17, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | abstract (adj.) - 1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical. 3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems. 4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice. 5. Impersonal, as in attitude or views. 6. Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture. FCP is the government, GMP is opposition. FCP is on one side of a political spectrum. GMP is on the other. The GMP wouldn't be doing it's duty if it did not fight against ideologies that is sees as archaic and damaging. |
| Date | 23:22:40, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Also, the FCP can "judge" all it wants, but it is the electorate that will do the talking. |
| Date | 02:56:10, May 13, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | So, do you have an argument or not??? Because it seems all you can do is attempt to insult me. In that case, we know who won. |
| Date | 03:08:03, May 13, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | "do you have an argument or not???" - are you serious??! how about going back to the 4th post of this debate and working from that. The GMP is not the party that has conveniently forgotten the point of this bill. |
| Date | 15:41:16, May 13, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Yes, and I rebuked that argument. Rebuke me. Is there anyone else here besides GMP and me? |
| Date | 17:28:55, May 13, 2006 CET | From | Growth and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Guns |
| Message | Not me! lol... Seriously let's just put this bill up to vote, because I doubt anyone's views are going to be changed on this bill. And I support this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 386 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 239 |
| Random fact: "Doxxing", or the publishing of personally identifiable information about another player without permission, is forbidden. |
| Random quote: "A man who has no office to go to - I don't care who he is - is a trial of which you can have no conception." - George Bernard Shaw |