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: Firearms Allowance Act of 2264
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Imperial Hobrazian Front
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: April 2264
Description[?]:
| To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Current: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
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 | 01:34:20, August 03, 2006 CET | From |  National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | OOC: The quote in the description is from George Mason, 1788. |
| Date | 04:07:19, August 03, 2006 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | What will we gain by introducing private ownership of firearms into our society? Guns have only one purpose - to kill people, which is exactly what will happen if we make them freely available in our society. How many of these deaths will be innocent bystanders doesn't even bear thinking about. We reject this proposal in the strongest possible terms. |
| Date | 06:03:09, August 03, 2006 CET | From | Federalist Party | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | We agree with the SDLP. Niet. |
| Date | 09:00:49, August 03, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | We maintain our stance against increased violence and the tools to increase that violence. |
| Date | 10:17:50, August 03, 2006 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | Under current laws, only criminals have guns. Does a violent criminal give a care about gun laws? No! They're criminals. Regardless, gun ownership is a great deterrant. Who would rape a woman if there was a 1 in 4 chance that she was packing heat? Who would burgle a house if there was a distinct possibility that they would be greeted with a shotgun? |
| Date | 14:30:02, August 03, 2006 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | Conversely, how many more criminals would this law create? How many people are going to be accidentally wounded or killed in firefights or misinterpreted situations? "Under current laws, only criminals have guns" Actually, the police also have guns. Regardless, it does not matter whether private gun ownership is legal or not; criminals are still likely to gain access to guns. The best way to ensure the security and safety of our citizens is not to give guns to anyone who wants them, but to focus our efforts on the illegal import of weapons and minimise the number of firearms in Hobrazia. If guns made people safer, countries that allowed almost anyone to possess an unlimited number of them would be the safest on Terra. Instead, we see the opposite. |
| Date | 14:42:07, August 03, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Allowance Act of 2264 |
| Message | Your arguments for gun ownership are spurious and not based upon fact, rather they are based upon a false belief. There has to shown to be a 92% correlation between the numbers of houeseholds with firearms and the number of gun deaths. There is also a 2.7 times increase in the risk of household homicide rates in households with homes as well as a "4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home." What the allowance of private firearms ownership does is provide people with the ability to start a firearms race within their own street. If the guy next door has a gun they can shoot you, but if you have a bigger gun than they have less chance. But what happens if the guy next door to them gets an even bigger gun? You're at a disadvantage, so you need a bigger gun. If this possiblity can happen on a small level within a single street, what do you expect from criminals? If everyone has a pistol, then the criminal needs an automatic. If the criminal has an automatic, then the people need at least an automatic, ad nauseum. Allowing people to own firearms does not make things safer, rather they provide increase risk and increased paranoia, something that isn't good if all the citizens are armed. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 214 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 120 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "A theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing"- Christopher Hitchens |