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 Weaponry Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
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: March 2100
Description[?]:
| Again, we would like a CIVILISED debate on the need or lack of such for police officers to be armed, or whether as we believe, police offiers can be as effective if not more so using non lethal equipment as technology has now advanced far enough to make non lethal weaponry viable (although specially trained armed units would be retained). Again, for the moment no proposal had been tabled. |
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 non-lethal weapons 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 | 18:32:08, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | There is no reason, why they shouldn't have it, it only makes the criminals more wary. Plus it helps protect them, if the suspect is armed. |
| Date | 20:28:00, June 24, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | Yes, but int he case of armed suspects, then trained armed response units can be sent. We just see the high rate of deahts caused in America by 'trigger happy' cops firing at suspects who clearly didn't present such a threat. Also we would say that non lehtal tech such as tasers has probably advanced to the stage where it can be used effectively to incapacitate vic tims instead of guns (& I suppose because i'm British and our police seem to work perfectly well without guns I don't see the need for them, but I don't know....?) |
| Date | 00:02:05, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | And then i see the high criminal rate, due to lack of guns per capita for Canada. Just because the US is gunhappy, doesn't mean we are....then again we can't measure. |
| Date | 01:07:37, June 25, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | Oh yes your absolutely right. Are knowledge in the UK of countries with widely armed police does disproportionatly come from incidents in the US and I wouldn't suggest for a moment that every amred cop in every countyr is trigger happy, but we just see police working well enough without them and feel that without guns it reduces the opportunity for these incidents to occur |
| Date | 04:09:30, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | in the UK, maybe it works fine...here in Canada, i hear nothing but crap. It probably also has to do with how much funding goes into training them most likely....if we can train them well though to not use them, then sure, i guess it would be fine to disarm them. Until we can measure, it's better to take precautions and let them have the guns. |
| Date | 21:12:51, June 25, 2005 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | A criminal is going to get a gun whether it is illegal or not. If they want a gun, they will get a gun. It simply puts the burden on the police officer in order to not just subdue the criminal but also to protect himself. You have to realise that the media is pushing this view that US cops are "trigger happy" however this is not the case. |
| Date | 21:13:14, June 25, 2005 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | I would let the cops have guns. |
| Date | 12:08:58, August 21, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Police Weaponry Act |
| Message | Another old one that I felt I might as well put to the vote! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 83 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 159 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 13 |
| Random fact: Submitting a bill without any proposals in it will not attract or detract voters. It will not raise your visibility or change your political position. |
| Random quote: "Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." - Maximilien Robespierre |