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 firearms
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian Socialist Federation
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: March 2070
Description[?]:
| In this nation adults are not allowed to carry firearms but yet the police are found carrying deadly firearms daily. We feel that all police carrying firearms is unnecessary and intimidating, we propose the setting up of a special firearms unit of the police force. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Current: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:15:22, June 21, 2005 CET | From |  Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Ah, this has been done before, and honestly not to much success, however, I am inclined to agree with the proposal to an extent. |
| Date | 00:17:19, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | However, I am not going to commit a u-turn, police must be able to defend themselves from armed criminals. |
| Date | 00:55:26, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Militant Labour Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | The Militant Tendency argues that this bill be extended to placing the police under the democratic public control to ensure there is no repeat of the use of violence by the state against legitimate demonstrations, protests, and pickets? |
| Date | 01:08:23, June 21, 2005 CET | From |  First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Repeat of the use? Again, MT, you say things which are untrue. I believe since criminals will have guns, whether you ban them or not, police need the same. So this is a no vote from me. |
| Date | 02:06:19, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Socialist Federation | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Kellary Party, police can defend themselves from armed criminals using alternatives like rubber bullets, tazers, stun guns and tear gas. |
| Date | 07:04:23, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Federal Technocrats | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Rubber bullets are quite lethal anyway. Tazers are the best option. Criminals are only forced to carry guns when the police are similarly armed, and are far less inclined to use them to kill if the kill don't either. There is significant satistical and anectodal evidence that when police and security are armed, criminals are more likely to take the lives of others to defend their own lives. By disarming police, we will inevitably save lives, and using no less effective methods criminality can still be effectively combated. |
| Date | 08:39:18, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | FT: Criminals do not arm themselves to be on the same level, they arm themselves to be better than everyone else. Taking away police ranged weapons, after all they are only armed with pistols and shotguns, not fully automatic weapons that criminals can get their hands on from outside our borders, our police are already at a disadvantage. I do not want to fully arm the police, but I will not stop them protecting themselves. Tazers have a very short range, please tell me how an officer will get to use it whilst being faced by a criminal with a shot gun. Remeber however our police are trained to use all non-lethal methods of incapacitation FIRST and only in extreme circumstances use lethal force. You think we set up the force just so they could shoot some civilians? Please. Our Police have one of the highest training standards in the world, I will not vote to disarm them in some useless intent for a violent revolution. LSF: As I have said to the FT, using other methods is the first step, but violent armed criminals will not hesitate to fire, we cannot allow our police to be unable to defend themselves. |
| Date | 09:03:22, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Just to clarify, the "intent for a violent revolution." was directed at MT, who seem to think our police force has persecuted people before, despite no civil unrest ever being violently put down. |
| Date | 09:51:23, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Ruthlessly Random Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | There's no point arguing, I got this bill passed before, then they reverted to lethal. Every argument you could put up I have done. |
| Date | 09:55:17, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | But you still didn't convince me. |
| Date | 10:27:49, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Christian Liberal Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | People will feel safer if the police have lethal weapons, and thus it is more likely that they won't decide they need to buy a gun themselves, illegal or otherwise. It's a no from me. |
| Date | 11:20:04, June 21, 2005 CET | From | stopped | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Whe agree with the CLP. The police have to be able to defend themselves. But whe should research the possibily of non-lethal weapons with the same power as guns. Like electroshots that paralise. Also whe could check more regarly if the policemen or trained well enough in crisismanegement and the use of a gun in a sensible and non-lethal way. |
| Date | 11:25:38, June 21, 2005 CET | From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | SH: Agreed. |
| Date | 11:27:14, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | SH: Agreed, until there is a truly, fully effective way to incapacitate a suspect/criminal non lethally, we have no choice. As soon as such technology is developed I would vote for it. |
| Date | 11:55:41, June 21, 2005 CET | From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | KP: Agreed. |
| Date | 22:17:25, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | KP: If no demonstration has ever been put down by violence, this is because no demonstration has ever posed a threat to the public safety, even in the narrow view of police forces. Yet you continue to accuse the left--without warrant--of intending to riot, kill police, etc. We demand an apology. |
| Date | 03:02:04, June 22, 2005 CET | From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | No we don't. We are just making sure a violent protest, like say, a REVOLUTION, does not occur if it poses a threat to the public. |
| Date | 13:04:44, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Police firearms |
| Message | Oh great, its gonna start into 'Left and Right' mud slinging. No apology, you have advocated revolution before. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 106 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 93 | ||||||
| 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: "A conservative is a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits." - Woodrow Wilson |