[DRAFT] Bann Gun Ownership by Civilians

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Learn how to grammar OP

Ok, gentlemen, as a proposal writer myself.... THIS IS COMPLETELY UNHELPFUL. If you are going to put needless crap like this, don't post at all.

What, you feel bad for the little guy? What is this a place for newbie delegates to propose random crap.
Yay, Im a delegate lets post cheap and never-passable proposals.
Proposal regulation right now, not everyone should be let to propose

[The Dark Star Republic]

Proposal regulation right now, not everyone should be let to propose

Anyone can post a draft. Only a WA member with two endorsements can submit a proposal, though. If you want any more of a check than that, then you're going to have to petition the game staff in the Technical forum.

[Friday Freshman]

Proposal regulation right now, not everyone should be let to propose

Anyone can post a draft. Only a WA member with two endorsements can submit a proposal, though. If you want any more of a check than that, then you're going to have to petition the game staff in the Technical forum.

Seconded, the World Assembly follows a democratic process with a pretty large margin of freedom of speech. If you don't like that don't get involved. How would you like it if we said that people under 200 posts can't comment on drafts? You would not like it. Don't come to the World and expect to boss others around after only 2 weeks.

[Wrapper]

Only a WA member with two endorsements can submit a proposal, though.

And this author is short an endorsement.

[Grays Harbor]

No. Bad Idea. Really Bad Idea.

[Tsarist Chernigov]

Don't do it,just don't do it,it will just cause people to rebel.

[The Palentine]

I'd really like to see the WA Gnomes try to enforce this in the AO, should it ever pass. <snicker>
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Orientales Romanorum Imperium]

A few questions,

What about people in the country? They could live miles away from any police station and if their home was intruded, help would probably come too late. Also, if their livestock are threatened by predators, how are they supposed defend them? With harsh language?

[Grays Harbor]

A few questions,

What about people in the country? They could live miles away from any police station and if their home was intruded, help would probably come too late. Also, if their livestock are threatened by predators, how are they supposed defend them? With harsh language?

Internet petitions and sloganeering t-shirts. Didn't you know those work wonderfully on wolves and other predatory animals?

[Afro-Euasia]

I have three things to say.
1.This will raise crime rates and since less people have guns,less people can defend themselves from other murders with knives and fists.
2.Then only bad guys get guns and the crime rate rises more.
3.This should be chosen by each nation,not the WA.

[Rifty]

I have three things to say.
1.This will raise crime rates and since less people have guns,less people can defend themselves from other murders with knives and fists.
2.Then only bad guys get guns and the crime rate rises more.
3.This should be chosen by each nation,not the WA.

It would limit gun related violence and decrease crime. This can be observed in all nations around the world that have gun ownership heavily restricted. If guns are hard to get petty criminals are unable to obtain them as easily. Of course large organisations like the Mafia will still have guns but it removes that everyday element of guns in everyones hands. More so people freeze up 9 times out of 10 when they need to use a gun to protect themselves.

Read up on the matter before sharing the same uneducated view that all of america holds; a nation where there seems to be a shooting in a school everyday.

I do agree it should be up to the individual owner of the nation though.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: keep the RW arguments out of here. Both of you are doing nothing but spouting polarized propoganda. You want to argue American gun policies? Take it to frelling NSG.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

Ugh. We have another gun-related proposals? We are going down the same rabbit hole again... remember that proposal put forward by the Molsonian Republics?

This is just like that, except the other way around. Let's not go there.

Oh, and yeah, the Sovereign Empire is opposed to such a proposal.

Citizens in the Sovereign Empire are free to own firearms as written in the GS-1120: The Militia Creation Act of 1930. This legislation authorizes the Rieshistagi to call upon irregular militia forces to supplement the Imperial Territorial Army, and the Imperial Gristol-Serkonos Defence Forces.

[Afro-Euasia]

OOC:Just a question,can I sign this into law but not enforce it,and have citizens enforce it on their own.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:Just a question,can I sign this into law but not enforce it,and have citizens enforce it on their own.

OOC: no. Governments pass WA law into national law, and enforce it themselves.

[Afro-Euasia]

OOC:Just a question,can I sign this into law but not enforce it,and have citizens enforce it on their own.

OOC: no. Governments pass WA law into national law, and enforce it themselves.

OOC:I wonder what would happen when I lower law spending.

[Afro-Euasia]

I have three things to say.
1.This will raise crime rates and since less people have guns,less people can defend themselves from other murders with knives and fists.
2.Then only bad guys get guns and the crime rate rises more.
3.This should be chosen by each nation,not the WA.

It would limit gun related violence and decrease crime. This can be observed in all nations around the world that have gun ownership heavily restricted. If guns are hard to get petty criminals are unable to obtain them as easily. Of course large organisations like the Mafia will still have guns but it removes that everyday element of guns in everyones hands. More so people freeze up 9 times out of 10 when they need to use a gun to protect themselves.

Read up on the matter before sharing the same uneducated view that all of america holds; a nation where there seems to be a shooting in a school everyday.

I do agree it should be up to the individual owner of the nation though.

Guns protect people,as people with at least one handgun can defend himself,and you are just leading the guns to the black market,where only people used to it are terrorists,criminals,and robbers,banning guns just adds more guns to the black market stockpile.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: no. Governments pass WA law into national law, and enforce it themselves.

OOC:I wonder what would happen when I lower law spending.

OOC: that's a topic suited for Technical. Or Gameplay. Either one would be an area I don't frequent, so I couldn't tell you. But resolutions would, theoretically, require something like an anarchy to figure out how to pass and enforce laws with what minuscule government exists. Sounds interesting, at least.

[Orientales Romanorum Imperium]

A few questions,

What about people in the country? They could live miles away from any police station and if their home was intruded, help would probably come too late. Also, if their livestock are threatened by predators, how are they supposed defend them? With harsh language?

Internet petitions and sloganeering t-shirts. Didn't you know those work wonderfully on wolves and other predatory animals?

Funny, but I'd really appreciate an answer from the OP.

[Separatist Peoples]

Internet petitions and sloganeering t-shirts. Didn't you know those work wonderfully on wolves and other predatory animals?

Funny, but I'd really appreciate an answer from the OP.

OOC: the op appears to have abandoned this. Go to General if you want to debate gun control. It's more lively.

[Republic of Libanon]

Lebanon will leave the WA should this happen.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

As stated, the original poster hasn't commented in some time, so any further discussion constitutes zombie resurrection spam. Until the OP returns, there's little to say on the topic of firearm marriage.

[Wissenholm und Himmel]

As stated, the original poster hasn't commented in some time, so any further discussion constitutes zombie resurrection spam. Until the OP returns, there's little to say on the topic of firearm marriage.

I am ok with people marrying their firearms and/or most weapons systems.

[Ardchoille]

Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership). Further, Gun Control does not govern the use of firearms by police and military forces, only that of civilians.

This ruling was challenged earlier. It has been upheld as accurate, based on the statistics available for the category and the description as originally written.

After discussion with the stats guys, GA mods agreed that the category should be amended to take in the possibility of "tightening" to the extent of banning personal guns -- basically, what many of us assumed already existed. But, because we simply don't have the stats to account for a total ban, these will still have to be "regulated" bans. These words have been added to the category description:

Note that proposals under this category are Strong to Significant.

As of October 16, 2014, this category may also be used to ban or compel the private use of firearms, though not as a blanket "all forms of firearms under any circumstances" (hint: think practical personal exemptions).

What that means is: you can't tighten the noose completely. You can slide it very close. The more exemptions from a ban you have, the less "banny" it is.

"Practical personal exemptions" could include such things as permission for farmers or hunters-for-food to hold personal guns. Some may see a need for explorers or pioneers to have them. There may be environmental or humane reasons to control pests or wildlife populations with guns. Moving into "recreational" use, authors may want to include regulations or exemptions for collectors of historical firearms, gun clubs, competition shooters, game-trophy hunters and the like. You can use one or many of these to create a "regulated" or "graded" ban.

I'm afraid that "we don't have the stats to account for a total ban" is as close as I can go to explaining the statistical position. Stats from WA Resolutions intertwine with nation stats from Issues, and Issues players know how frustratingly a WA Resolution can upset a reviving Economy, or how astute responses to Issues can overcome a WA setback. This sort of detail is not used as a basis for legality rulings. Ten years of interconnected decisions make major stats alterations difficult, and sometimes impossible.

GA mods generally try not to discuss category stats, as they're not available to players and, until recently, weren't available to us, either. However, it's common knowledge that WA Resolutions do affect your nation's statistics. The descriptions that go with the categories tell you what freedoms or areas will be affected. If a category description says "proposals in this category restrict personal freedoms", then for legality you have to make sure that something in the text does restrict personal freedoms.

The queries about Gun Control have prompted the stats guys to look closely at some of the older categories and make some changes that won't affect proposal legality. Discussion on these categories is ongoing, but purely technical. If any changes cause a different approach to a category, we'll let you know. We're discussing the possibility that the stark Outlaw/Legalise choice in Gambling may be brought into line with Gun Control's format, allowing graded regulation and perhaps more use of the category.

[Lavan Tiri]

The nukes shall fly.